The Reason For My Faith

You’re 100% right on this issue, although most of us are too afraid to say so! Without the women’s vote democrats would have lost every election since sufferage passed… with one exception and that was Barry Goldwater.

The 4 Ism’s, liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism will be the torpedos that will sink our great ship of state.

Damn right. The 19th amendment has ruined America. Thanks to oprah and daytime television we have a marxist in the white house.

My wife agrees with this. She suggested it to me 20 years ago. She said most young women will vote for a husband and/or father to provide for them.That way eventually brings Stalin or at least Mussolini. Women will never be the rulers, except for individual electees, but they will select the rulers by their own lights because they always will be the majority, at least unless we institute a One-Child policy. Then, after a couple of generations, men will rule again because women as a group will always prefer sons to daughters- to protect and provide for them, of course.

The future of the world is probably with India and China, or with Islam. In China and India girl children in great numbers do not succeed in getting born. In Islamistan females are held to the status of cattle and goats and will never rule. And the wealthier men have multiple wives so that many men stay womanless and aggressive. These are masculine cultures whose focus must remain outward to conquest in order to keep the restless womanless men from storming the Capital. The West is all feminine cultures, ruled by women and are inwardly directed and must eventually succumb.

Making nice with the meanies on the block only gets your kid beat up.

Ummm…Desperate? Talk about a reach and grasping at straws!

Look at your narrowminded self–you are a prime example of why people think Republicans are nuts and articles like this only hurt your cause even more.

Grow up–take some responsibility and look at what you’re doing. You are not helping yourself, or your cause. Blaming this crap on women? Get real.

Here’s the bottom line – Republicans need to figure out a way to reach women voters, and you are not helping them do it. Sit back, shut up, and stay out of it.

You got bells the size of church balls for posting this thread

I am a woman and I totally agree with you.

Take a look at what’s happened to news. Used to be men would get the facts, report what happened. Now that women dominate all we get are FEELINGS. I’m personally sick of seeing women quite so much. Watch old 50’s clips and it is amazing how few women are sounding off or are even in evidence – which really is refreshing.

Phil Donahue must have been born a woman then. I can think of a nice list of touchy feely men and straight forward, fact telling women. Generalizations such as these are absurd. Let me know if you’d like a list of men who shouldn’t be allowed to vote because of their emotional make-up.

“Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.

For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.

The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.”

OneVike?

You are right in line with Ann Coulter who said that if women couldn’t vote, we’d never see a Democrat in the White House again.

That’s is also the exact the same thing my wife has said multiple occasions over the more than thirty years we’ve been married.

her ire on the matter is based on the belief that women have too much tendency to cast their vote based upon emotional values rather than serious consideration of the candidates and the issues of the times.

Add another major factor-giving the vote to those who don’t get adversely impacted by high taxes and more gov spending. They vote for anyone promising more largess from the gov.

Holly wrote: “Generalizations such as these are absurd. Let me know if you’d like a list of men who shouldn’t be allowed to vote because of their emotional make-up.”

OneVike was fairly specific. He does not suggest women shouldn’t vote or that some men aren’t emotionally influenced. OV wrote:

“I am not advocating that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. I am also not suggesting that the 19th amendment would, should, or ever could be reversed. *** I also realize that there are many men who think more emotionally then some women do, just compare Barney Frank to Ann Coulter.”

He’s making the greater argument that logic has been abandoned in favor of emotional reactionary policies and thought.

Indie wrote:

“Here’s the bottom line – Republicans need to figure out a way to reach women voters, and you are not helping them do it. Sit back, shut up, and stay out of it.”

This is the biggest problem with women. They so often REFUSE to even listen to a logical point. I suggest you take your own advice with one caveat, to wit, sit back, shut up…and LEARN something. You’d be surprised how much it will broaden your horizons.

I agree about the 19th Amendment. Because women have the vote, we get idiots like Bill Clinton who “feels your pain” and Stuttering Barack Oteleprompter the pretty-boy descendant of slaveowners and muslim slavetraders.

That said, I believe women should be allowed to run for office. A woman who can make it in a man’s world (ie, Golda Meir, Maggie Thatcher, Sarah Palin, etc.) is worthy of getting a man’s vote. Sounds hypocritical, but it’s no worse than Albore jetting around the world preaching to us about our carbon footprint.

And you all wonder why the country decided that republicans shouldn’t be stewards of our civil rights, or even be in charge any longer…

..no, never mind, that’s not fair. Most republicans aren’t completely insane like those here advocating removing representation from half our population because they don’t have a penis…and then saying that it’s “logical”.

This was the most horrendously written piece of trash I’ve seen in a long, long time. I feel dirty just posting in this thread.

Wow…just wow.

I have to admit the author has guts for writing this article! Wow and better yet, good for him, it needed to be said!

It is true, history took a turn at the time sufferage was passed and nobody who knows their history can deny that.

I’m sure the liberals will deny that it had anything to do with sufferage (just coincidence) and the general emotional makeup of women voters is irrelevant. But, would they also deny there is no emotional difference between the sexes?

Hard science says there is brain differance and just because we can point to men who act like women and vice versa, it doesn’t change the big picture.

News flash: Men and women process information differently! Duh! Their brains are wired slightly differently and this makes input come a little different in the output form between men and women. If you deny this fact, that will harken us back to the bad old days where science doesn’t matter anymore and book burning is the acceptable replacement for presto-logs.

Conclusion: Women changed this nation when they got the vote.

This seems to me as a very rational scientific theory and the preponderance of evidence todate supports the theory is true.

I am a woman – I agree with this article. In the words of my late Father, “If we left it up to women, we’d still be riding around in ox carts with wooden wheels.” and they’d probably be square. Women are not anylitical, they only want to know if something works and HOPE for the best, they have no interest in how it works. Men by nature want to know how things work and OBTAIN the best. Except for men on the left, they have women-like tendencies.

What the woodwork doth hold! Biggest laugh I’ve had in some time.

Death to patriarchy … and to all collaborators!

Seriously … huge chortle … a half an hours’ worth. I’m not kidding.

Are you the same people who rail against Islam? Really? Seriously? Think about it, why don’t you!

Big giggle.

Most republicans aren’t completely insane like those here advocating removing representation from half our population because they don’t have a penis…and then saying that it’s “logical”.

I dare say that most Republicans do not have what it takes anymore to be honest about what they think. They are more worried about what the pc thought police will do to their carrer.

My problem with the Republican party is that it has become Democrat lite.

Now if you think it is great that we get idiotic laws passed because someone has an emotional outburst over any of a number of random incidents then you are one of those emotional types I wrote about.

Now as for those here advocating the removal of anyone’s rights to vote, it is I who wrote this not Tina and not Jack. As I have read plenty of things by them and they have never ever advocated anything that you seem to have read about denial of voting rights.

Now why don’t you ask Al Gore about denying the military the right to vote by getting the votes of the soldiers who are oversee thrown out in Florida in 2000.

Please reread the article because I wrote that I do not believe we could, would, or should repeal the 19th amendment. Open your eyes when you read next time and use your head for more then a hat rack.

I agree with you OneVike, I have often stated such to my husband on many occasions.

I am a political junkie. I have a greater understanding of history, economics, politics and business than most of the men I deal with daily (except here on FR, of course). Most of what my husband knows concerning politics and political philosophy he has learned from me. That being said, I think this country would be much better off if women had never been given the right to vote.

Grow a set. Get a life. Elect real men. Quit playing around. Get down to business. Take care of business. Get R done. Quit screwing around with feelings, because that will only get you in trouble. Look at our history.

Enough

Libby, I was wondering when you would stop by. How’s things down at the local commune? See when I wrote this article I had women like you in mind. All the emotional garbage that you espouse makes my point. You are the quintessential example of the kind of woman that has helped turn this country into an emotional basket case.

I have a question I’ve been meaning to ask you for some time. Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?

I know quite a number of emotional men. At the same time, I would gladly surrender my right to cancel out their votes if my “sisters” out there couldn’t cancel out the non-emotional ones.

This is a hornet’s nest.

No offense to St. Ann…but things were not always hunky dory when the men elected the presidents…the 1800s are riddled with weak presidents, scandals, and wait….uh..was Woodrow Wilson not a Democrat? The women had no say so on that either did they? Hmmmmm….

As an old female I agree that many women vote with their emotions. If it sounds good thats good enough for them.. Including lots of my female acquaintance’s… I am old enough to also remember when you HAD to be a property owner to vote of property taxes…The democrats finally got around that by saying welllll, renters pay property taxes also when they pay their rent….Can we all say rent control in New York……

My mother always said giving women the right to vote was stupid.

She claimed that they already had the right to vote and exercised it at the diner table and in the bedroom.

Wow….WOOOWWW!

I am impressed and very flattered that there are so many who found my article interesting enough to respond.

I will forever be called a right wing extremist, but I proudly wear that title as a badge of honor.

If this country is going to go to hell in a hand basket because of all the idiotic emotional laws that gets passed. Then I will have no choice but to stand up on any podium that I can get on and yell as loud as I can about the things I find wrong.

Time for bed, I’ll continue this debate tomorrow when my head is a little rested.

First off OneVike, well done, well said, and keep up the great work! You could have started your essay In bold capitol print stating that you DO NOT BELIEVE THE 19th AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REPEALED. The people who take offense to your post would blow right by that and still beat you over the head. They never let little things like facts get in their way and they are not going to start on something as huge as this.
I agree with you 100%. I also think and have always thought, the more rights an open society gives the people, the greater the chance that society will be strangled by those very rights and people. I served our Country and would have killed or been killed to protect our constitution in whole. Having said that, you know something is wrong when a crucifix in a jar of pi*s is paid for by a grant from the Federal government and protected under the constitution as free speech. This is just one more proof that our system is broken and going down. Without rewriting the constitution (in this day and age it would end up longer than the tax code and harder to understand), I see no hope in things getting better anytime soon. Keep up the great work, at least your pi*sing them off, the truth always does!

The most ardent opponents of the “right” to vote for women that I know are all women. My wife is one of them.

Anyone see when Jimmy Kimmel had someone stand on the street with a petition to “end women’s suffrage”. All of these women clamored on-board to sign as they didn’t even understand what it meant… just that they saw the word “woman” and a word that sounded like “suffering”.

Won’t somebody please think about the children?

Rather than debate about womens’ role, the focus should be — only property owners and income-tax payers over the age of 25 should be allowed to vote.

Spot on.

Women voting eventually leads to socialism, especially when more and more women are liberated — i.e., reporducing without husbands, and therefore looking for Big Brother to being a father to their little bas—.

For some strange reason, I would object to not being able to vote based on gender. However, as much as it sounds nice that there should be an intelligence test prior to voting, some things are inappropriate.

In Heinlein’s book “Starship Troopers”, the concept of the freebies and government dole impact on the people is well illustrated. Secondly this book brought into focus the concept of earning the right to vote. He was well before his time. Several of the “fictional” scenes seem all too real.

What a joke.. I guess you want voting rescinded from Native Americans, non-land owners, and descendants of slaves as well.

We can’t blame people having rights on our failure to properly educate and instill conservative values in them. If certain segments by statistics, generally vote for a more ‘nanny’ care-taking type of government, that is OUR fault for not spreading Conservatism, that is not Freedom’s fault.

According to this MSNDC report it was unmarried females that got bammie elected

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27524699/”.

70 percent of single women choose Obama.

“But at least 70 percent of unmarried women with and without children supported Obama, a margin of more than 2-to-1.”

Editors note: Unfortunately our software doesn’t allow commenting parties to post links…only URL’s. That might change very soon however.

I am praying. PRAYING. That your article catches fire among Republicans.

You’ll be out of power for eternity.

Of course, it’s not good to have one party rule. I foresee a nation of Democrats and Greens. Yes. Yes. Healthcare, emissions control, and we’ll all rent tiny little Zipcars to get around, and the Saudis will go back to being nomadic tribes because nobody wants their oil.

Thanks, Onevike! You made my Monday.

Here’s a quandary. Is it better to have OneVike and his ilk subsumed into either of the larger parties, pandered to, and kept out of mischief? Or shall we give in to a terribly emotional urge to demonstrate repeatedly to them that they are all nutcakes … tolerated, but certainly not included … and send them off to form their fringe parties?

P.S.: It is entirely true that giving women the vote was one of many steps down the road to socialism. This is a GOOD thing.

Democrats and greens do not translate to a two party system. Hold on to your hat Mrs. Polly you may discover a reinvigorated Republican Party to contend with instead.

Those tiny cars match the tiny logic behind your vision…we’d still be pounding our clothes on a rock in the river if we had to depend on your reasoning. Creativity, investment, and risk behind big ideas solved yesterday’s problems and they will solve todays problems.

Growing government and robbing citizens of their money with high taxes, fees and regulation that leads to increased prices for consummers will not solve healthcare or green issues, imagined or real.

P.S.: It is entirely true that giving women the vote was one of many steps down the road to socialism. This is a GOOD thing.

You only help to make my point Libby.

Thanks, you’re a sweet heart for backing me up!

“P.S.: It is entirely true that giving women the vote was one of many steps down the road to socialism. This is a GOOD thing.”

Nobody is stopping you from performing those “random acts of kindness” in a big way…privately.

I find it amusing that a died in the wool feminist like you, Libby, would find the oppressive effects of socialism a “good thing”.

The problem with feminine sympathy diplacing logic is that it doesn’t work. Sympathizers don’t want to actually do something, or pay for it. Instead they’d create a huge inefficient bureaucratic monster, forcing others to pay…mostly those euphamistically referred to as “the rich”.

Socialism always leads to shared misery with a few elitist rich at the top. Women would be wise to educate and inform themselves to this historical fact and to the limitless possibilities that are inspired in a free society.

Maybe the best thing to do is to test voters for maturity, mental stability and ability, good character and overall knowledge of how democracy works, then issue a provisional voter card, kind of like a drivers license and make them renew it every 8 years to prove they haven’t been backsliding.

“My father has been dead for 30 years but I still remember his saying granting women the right to vote was the greatest mistake in the history of our Republic.”

I guess that settles that.

Only an arty XXXX would say someone was “played like a stradivarius.”

Editor: We do not tolerate hate speech. Using the term arty F- – – – violated our policy for public decency.

Do it again and you will banned for life.

And conservatives get mad when liberals call them sexist?!

I feel bad for your daughters. I hope they don’t grow up thinking that they are genetically destined to be irrational because all of you hold such sexist beliefs.

If you men and women were living in the Middle East right now you’d probably have no problem with Sharia, sex segregation, or the Taliban. Your daughters would be second class citizens and you would embrace that.

The author of this article and everyone who agreed with it should be completely ashamed of themselves for this kind of bigotry.

“If you men and women were living in the Middle East right now you’d probably have no problem with Sharia, sex segregation, or the Taliban. Your daughters would be second class citizens and you would embrace that”

And thus we witness the great disconnect.

If indeed you are a logical person read the article again…you missed the point completely…hint, “bigotry” and/or preconceived notions might be clouding your own ability to get what the other person is saying. (You might call it thinking outside of the box)

Only an arty *^#@ would say someone was “played like a stradivarius.”

Another idiotic outburst by an emotionally illogical member of the left. Are you from the democratunderground.com website?

See Libby? This is why I think those people should not be allowed to comment here.

If emotional voting by women is what has kept the author of this article from being killed while skateboarding or driving, then maybe more people would be in favor of repealing the 19th amendment.

It is, indeed, a very sad commentary about how America has been emasculated by the women’s movement. This nation use to be a leader in the world. Now we have been forced to ask for permission to defend ourselves, and to request forgiveness when we do.

If emotional voting…kept the author…from being killed while skateboarding…maybe more people would be in favor of repealing the 19th amendment.

It would be my fault would it not? But hey, if my death as a young reckless kid would have kept the 19th amendment from ever seeing the light of day, then I wish God would have taken me home then.

Reality is a lot less people would be dead today if it never passed.

… “played like a stradivarius.”

The odd thing is, as near as I can tell with my trusty “find” function, nobody said it.

“And thus we witness the great disconnect.”

And then she commences the name-calling. It’s a perfectly valid comparison, Tina. Anybody who wants the 19th Amendment repealed, by logical extension of the concept, would probably go in for the sort of repression of women so very prevalent under Sharia Law. You think we’re not going to point it out, yer nuts.

And OneVike, if you’re going to keep on with this, read the posts carefully, because somebody’s Mommy Issues are starting to show.

Wow! Good to know. Women are the real terrorists. Now I know why I “chose” to be gay.

Beginning of the end for America?

America did not become a superpower until AFTER women gained the right to vote. (We became a superpower after World War II, which you have a Democrat to thank for winning for you.)

Men are more logical than women?

Men are responsible for the vast majority of:
-murder
-rape
-wars (and yes, men were far more responsible for WWII than women, even though women had the right to vote)
-genocides

Young women are now graduating from college more often than men and getting better grades.

Maybe we should re-think the stereotype about which sex is more logical.

Wouldn’t this apply to the 14th and 15th amendments as well? I mean, if blacks and hispanics couldn’t vote, we’d have President McCain right now, wouldn’t we?

It’s “Reagan,” not “Reagen.”

After 9/11 we invaded Iraq. That was clearly logical and non-emotional.

Yeah! And we should start lynching *#&%**# again!

Editors Note…We DO NOT condone this despicable brand of speech…we will edit when necessary to preserve our family friendly environment.

It’s not lost on me that you make an emotional argument about women being emotional. Additionally, if it was that easy to emasculate the male population…. well, what does that say about the viability of male dominance? Just asking.

OneVike is gay. Who else hates women? OneVike wishes he could be alone in a room full of men. Btw this article is hilarious so I’d like thank One*i*k for his musings.

Editors note: Ooooh, I’ll play…MR is short for moron…see anyone can make a stupid remark…it’s easy.

And btw, my gay friends love women.

Hmm… interesting.

The country has gone into a downfall after the 19th amendment? Politically, correct?

That can be your only argument. Everything else in this country has improved greatly. Improved health care which has allowed Americans to have longer lifespans. More technical advances against diseases.

We have free speech while other countries abuse and prison those who would speak ill of their country. Most of the people on this list would be in jail in China for bad mouthing their country.

How bout the great advances in technology? In home building? Water purification? Automotive industry?

The downfall of the country is not due to women. The blame falls on all Americans. We have become egotistical and complacent as other countries have continued to improve themselves. We are quick to point the finger and slow to take responsibility, if any at all, for a problem. The AIG scandal, Enron, Worldcom, Madoff… those problems are caused by greed. I could say “BLAME MEN,” but I am an analytical person and thus able to look at the interior of a problem and not just the exterior.

There are, have been, and will always be problems in this country if everything is based off of forming blame from gender.

Learn how to use John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” to analyze a problem.

Lynching *#&%**# may prove to be problematical.

They now have an unfortunate tendency to shoot back.

This is fantastic. Highly interesting “What if…” scenario that actually makes you wonder. Maybe not restricting voting based on gender, but on other criteria.

What if people who didn’t contribute to society couldn’t vote? What if that meant people on Welfare had to rely on the goodness of others instead of robbing contributors at gunpoint by the threat of force? I think we’d have a more productive country.

So it is now considered a good thing that most men are pedophiles and rape children?

Darn women’s right to vote and create child safety laws!

Goodness. It’s starting to sound very freepy around here.

You wanna insult people on these premises, you gotta be more genteel about it.

How long did it take for the left to get disgusting in the way they argue a point. I make logical arguments and you come back with personal insults. Cute, but I am not phased. If you liked this article so much that you could not hold your anger back, just wait for my next one. It will make you blow a gasket.

Libby? You never answered my question. This has nothing to do with any of these political discussions we have, but I truly wish to know. Do you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

Thanks for playing =)

The room full of men is any legislative “male” body you can think of. The more sword playing the better for OneVike.

MR is short for Minister or Marriage or Mormon whatever (ha) see it’s easy to just make up a represenation without any logic behind it. Really try better next time.

OKAY now back to basics. If you’re going to write a piece on womens right to vote and how it lead to ruining the US, then frame your argument better around facts rather than an “emotional” response (like those ladies your talking about). OneVike you just aren’t able to handle that things CHANGE. Deal.

PS – Your gay friends love women sure, but a gay man won’t have a female partner. Wink Wink. Partner in creating a better world I meant! HAHA

“So it is now considered a good thing that most men are pedophiles and rape children?”

What neighborhood of friends and associates do you live in? Presumably, a liberal one.

I would bet these stats have climbed, if they have, as a result of women leaving the home, abandoning the responsibility of raising their children in a peaceful safe environment with mother and father both present. The broken home, along with millions of aborted babies, is the devistatingly tragic result of the so called womens movement.

The conservative men I know are respectful and enjoy participating with women. They do, in fact, often promote women and compensate them generously. They also didn’t need the women’s movement to “make them” do it.

Maybe you should get some new friends.

when someone makes a generalization about MORE THAN HALF of the population, you know he/she is an idiot:)

If women are so emotional, then don’t let them be surgeons operating on your heart, or your eyes; don’t let us be judges deciding about life and death cases in court. Don’t let us raise children or teach children and adults in schools and universities. Don’t let us drive or operate any machinery. And please don’t let us be researchers because doing research for a PHD takes much more intelligence and dedication than doing research in order to cast an intelligent vote.

you could also think that women are just as intelligent as men and vote for what BENEFITS them and do not vote for what HURTS their interests. So if you talk sh** on women and try to screw them over, you don’t get their votes. If you want to take our rights away, you don’t get our vote. Seems quite logical to me. and very American.

“Making nice with the meanies on the block only gets your kid beat up.”

… and gets you Stalin, etc., in the White House. Please try to think it through.

Besides which, some women are real meanies. I have no doubt at all of Senator Feinstein’s ability and/or willingness to make war for oil, given the opportunity.

And do you not eternally complain about old Al Gore’s decidedly feminine worldview?

Any notion of denying anybody the vote cause of race or gender is pure chauvinism. Now there’s a nostalgic blast … Male Chauvinist Pig!

Libby! You admit it…making nice with meanies ensures that Stalin is in the WH. We’ve been telling you that forever!

Sara wrote: “when someone makes a generalization about MORE THAN HALF of the population, you know he/she is an idiot:)”

You assume that over half of the population disagrees with the premise that the more feminine trait of emotionalism has harmed the nation.

I wonder how it would track out here? Anybody keeping tabs?

“So it is now considered a good thing that most men are pedophiles and rape children?”

Actually, the laws that have reduced the sentences and punishments for these crimes have come about because of Liberals and Women being elected to office…

“Don’t let us drive or operate any machinery.”
Thats definately a safe bet. I’ve met few women who can change the oil on their car let alone operate something with more than a gas pedal and a steering wheel…

Oh come on! If you guys had the ba**s you say yo do, you’d admit to wanting to take away the rights of blacks, too. I know I do, as a proud, Bible-believein’ Republican! women should be silent and subservient and the inferior races should be our slaves! I’m talkin about that old time religion, The Old Testament! Amen!

My goodness, some of you must have knuckles of hamburger from all that dragging! Do keep making the crazy nooks and crannies of the Republican party irrelevant…it amuses me (though I feel sorry for reasonable members of your party).

How very “A Modest Proposal”.

Whoever wrote this is a chauvenistic pig without one iota of intelligence and probably a very small penis.

Also, I love how women and socialists love to complain about how “No one let them do anything…” Let me give an example: Complaint “Well sure it was MEN who went and forced royalty to sign the Magna Carta, because no one let women out to do it…(sob)” Here’s an idea, no one “let” the men who forced King John to sign it, do it either. They just DID IT, without asking permission and damned the consequences. And so it is throughout history. That’s why its dominated by men, they didn’t give two craps about anyones approval. Even today, the most “liberated” woman still cares very much about the approval of her cohorts.

The ability to act and bring to order are inherently male traits that nature developed through evolution (or was created by a higher being depending on your view), it involves risk and danger. It’s why all major breakthroughs in Human history have been accomplished by men. Men discovered America to Europe. Men climbed Everest. Men discovered Antartica, the North Pole, Outer Space, the Sun, the Stars, Alegbra, Geometry, Calculus, Science, Fire, Bows and Arrows, Swords, Guns, Cars, Planes, Uses for Atomic materials (a woman discovered Uranium)…

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, whine about how unfair life is…

Oh my God! I can’t believe I just read that. I can’t believe someone wrote that!
I don’t know wether I should laugh or be afraid.

Blame it on New Jersey, dumbasses.

Original New Jersey State Constitution

New Jersey Constitution of 1776
Main article: New Jersey State Constitution

In 1776, the first New Jersey State Constitution was drafted. It was written during the period of the Revolutionary War, and was designed to create a basic framework for the state government. The constitution recognized the right of suffrage for women and black men who met certain property requirements. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 gives the vote to “all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money.” This included blacks, spinsters, and widows. (Married women could not own property under the common law.) It had been held that this was an accident of hasty drafting: the British were at Staten Island when the constitution was proclaimed. The Constitution declares itself temporary, and it was to be void if there was reconciliation with Great Britain.

Both sides in elections mocked the other for relying on “petticoat electors” and each accused the other of letting unqualified women (including married women) vote. A Federalist legislature passed a voting rights act which applied only to those counties where the Federalists were strong. A Democratic legislature extended it to the entire state. In 1807, as a side-effect of a reconciliation within the Democratic Party, the legislature reinterpreted the constitution (which had been an ordinary act of the Provincial Congress) to mean universal white male suffrage, with no property requirement. However, they disenfranchised paupers, to suppress the Irish vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_during_the_American_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_State_Constitution

“Libby? You never answered my question. This has nothing to do with any of these political discussions we have, but I truly wish to know. Do you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?”

[Another good long chuckle.] But now I will attempt an answer. Not a yes or a no. The question is vastly impertinent and positively none of your business. What I’m going to try and do … is to convince you of this … persuade you of your arrogance … and shame you into ceasing, ever, to commit such impertinence again.

I give up.

With the responses I see here maybe it’s time to take the men’s vote away!!!!

So. Many. Grammatical. Errors.

If you want to take our rights away, you don’t get our vote. Seems quite logical to me. and very American.

Where in the article did I say I wanted to take away your right to vote? Did you read the article, or are you just going off on the headline?

Either way, the fact remains that if we stepped back to 1920,(Please read that again), if we stepped back to 1920 we would not have the benefit of knowing what we do now.

look, I know you are a bunch of angry liberals, and as a conservative I admit that I accuse liberals of being very emotional people. That does not change the fact that you are. By your reactions to my article you prove my point.

Guess what? I also believe that if we never lowered the voting age to 18 things would have been different. In hindsight, I for one would have given up my right to vote when I was 18 if I knew then what I know now. So if my inability to be able to vote at 18 would have kept Jimmy Carter,(whom I admit, I voted for when I was young and emotional) Bill Clinton, and Obama from getting elected it would have been a good thing. I realize that for emotional individuals, it is very difficult to step back and believe things would be better if you were never allowed something you now hold dearly.

I do not wish to disparage women, believe me I owe a lot of good things in my life to women who helped raise me properly. I also said it would be easier to hold back the rising waters of the Red River then it would be to repeal any amendment.

As I said, I never ever said I wanted to take away your right to vote. You have it, why would I do that? The men are now as emotionally unbalanced as the women who vote liberal. It really would not advance anything at this point.

I did say it never should have been passed, because then we would not have all these 88 years of feminizing the electorate and politicians. We also would not have 90% of the idiotic, lamebrain, emotionally, illogical laws on the books we now have!

Again, I say to those who bring up arguments that have no basis as to what I wrote, People Please read the whole article!

As for the crude remarks by those from the democrateunderground.com type lefties, I will not honor your rant with a comment.

If the highest respect for the rights of every individual – man, woman, black, hispanic, native american, white, rich, poor, able, disabled, etc. and genuine compassion for other life wasn’t intended to be a part of the “great republic”, then it’s perhaps a very good thing that republic is dead or dying. Rage against emotion all you like, the problem is never emotion itself but rather the old and continuing problem of rationalism versus irrationalism. There are, in fact, truly rational emotions and thoroughly irrational feelings. The first is essential, the second is destructive to life. We absolutely thrive because of the the first, we will be destroyed by the latter.

At any rate, the article is a diatribe too afraid to say what it wants to say – some among us want a christian fundamentalist totalitarian state not unlike that described in Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”. My message to them is this: You will not have what you wish as long as there are rational and compassionate human beings to stop you. Even if you enjoy some manner of success, you will ultimately fail. As history shows, no dictatorial empire survives. People who have the will for genuine freedom cannot be held captive indefinitely. You thrive on fear, conflict and destruction as your alleged “god-given dominion”. You are lunatics representing those bits of genetic code of which the species is struggling to rid itself … and will one day succeed.

You are evolutionary dead ends.

OneVine: with the greatest respect, this article is nonsense. It all depends on this fallacy:

Almost all important issues today come down to an argument between an emotional feeling and a logical thought.

No. Most political issues are determined by emotions. People – left or right – make choices depending on what they feel is the correct thing to do. Then they use logic to justify their goals and actions. Their logic may be faulty, or not. Either way it depends on what information people choose to bolster their arguments.

Yes, there have to be choices – because there’s a lot of information out there. Politicians everywhere have a finite time to state their case, and are very, very good at ignoring “inconvenient” facts.

As an example, let’s look at the issue about the woman’s right to vote. When you argued to take it away, you ignored the other 100+ countries in the world with female suffrage. That’s your choice. But as an Australian, I think that’s a dangerous omission. We gave women the vote in 1902 – 18 years before the United States. We are immeasurably better off for that. For example, the current premier of Queensland is Anna Bligh. Not 100% superb, but better than the utter fool of a man who was her opponent in the last state election. Look at other Western countries. Even Switzerland bit the bullet and gave the ladies the vote in 1971. It works. People prefer the arrangement.

Now look at the countries that don’t give women the vote. I can think of one: Saudi Arabia. Are they better off for denying suffrage to women? Of course not – the country is a disaster waiting to happen. They’re a big welfare state, they’re overpopulating their own country, and they gave the world Osama bin Laden.

Do you honestly want the US to be in the pitiful grouping of misogynist governments as Saudi Arabia. Personally, I think American deserves better.

I’m sick of women telling American men what to do. Specially when they go on TV and make demands. The sooner that wanna-be Man Coulter gets back into the kitchen, and treats men with respect the better.

“Why else would California have a law on the books that requires all persons under 18 years of age to wear a helmet while operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard. Or while wearing in-line or roller skates, or while riding upon a non motorized scooter or skateboard as a passenger?”

This law is completely logical. It is designed to save lives.

“However it was that slow and methodical thought process that allowed for an orderly progression that worked for thousands of years. And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.”

And again you show the delicious irony of your own inability to use logic. It was the biggest war in history because we had greater technology than at any other point in history. Not because of women. So the point that men have gotten us involved in most wars still stands.

And next time you write an essay about how much smarter you are than women, you might want to learn some proper grammar first.

Also, you seem very concerned over whether or not Libby is a Christian–because, of course, your belief in a 2000 year old book is completely based on logic, and has nothing at all to do with emotion!

You are an anti-American, freedom-hating, sexist pig. And I’m not saying that out of emotion. It’s a logical conclusion proven by what you have written here.

“Men and women process information differently! Duh! Their brains are wired slightly differently and this makes input come a little different in the output form between men and women.”

Sorry, but this really means nothing considering cognitive tests still show equal results.

“It’s why all major breakthroughs in Human history have been accomplished by men”

Not only is this false (Marie Curie?), but you must realize that the breakthroughs accomplished by men were because women were not allowed to be in universities until fairly recently in human history. How can they make discoveries if they’re not allowed to work in a school, lab, or research facility? Women weren’t even professors until the 1970’s. Perhaps some of my fellow men in this comment thread should quit being so eager to prominently display their own lack of knowledge.

I was about to tell all the women who posted in defense of this article that they should be ashamed of themselves…but then I remembered that they already are.

Really, I feel sorry for them. They have lived their entire lives under the belief that they are inferior to men, and that they shouldn’t be allowed the same rights. All because of people like OneVike.

Thank God that people like him are going the way of the dinosaurs.

Also, the concern about global warming is not about polar bears. It is about the possible extinction of the human race. What could be a more logical pursuit then trying to save ourselves? Oh, wait, I forgot. Things like protective measures to keep people from dying are apparently illogical to OneVike. That’s why he hates helmets. He probably hates seatbelts too, and sees them as a sign of how “emasculated” women have made society. Because the big strong men don’t need that sissy stuff! The truth is, this whole anxiety of yours about emasculation/feminization is not based on logic at all, but emotion. It shows your own insecurities and discomfort with anything that challenges traditional gender roles. If you actually educate yourself about feminism, you’ll find that their arguments are far more logical than anything you’ve posted here.

Skip;
Nice cut and paste job from Wikipedia, but what is your point? The facts you brought up have nothing whatsoever to do with my article. But it is cute the way you attempt to bring information into a discussion that has no bearing at all on the subject matter and then you act as if you are too cool for school!

Here is the problem with your comment. You dug up a nice bit of trivia about a state who’s law for all to vote did not even last long enough for the parties involved to vote in any election because the war was yet to be won. Next time try to come up with something original out of your own brain.

Libby;
You go girl! I will always be ready for your emotional attempts at changing my opinion.

Gabe; you said,
Oh my God! I can’t believe I just read that. I can’t believe someone wrote that!
If you cannot believe you read what you just read, how can we ever get to a sensible discussion about the merit of my idea?

Sue;
The way I treat women is called chivalry not chauvinism, which is the way Bill Clinton treats women.

Katie;
I am confused, are you for or against me?

Jane; you said,
Do keep making the crazy nooks and crannies of the Republican party irrelevant…it amuses me

The Republicans do not need me to make them irrelevant, they do just fine on their own. I on the other hand believe in expressing my mind, something that is beginning to be more and more dangerous with the current administration.

You really need to read “Mien Kampf” if you want to understand Obama and his Fascists friends in congress.

conservativeMike;
Sorry lefty, but you ain’t no conservative. You ever here the old proverb,
It is better to be quiet and thought of as a fool, then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt? Conservative my foot!

Steve K;
No it wouldn’t be, but in the old days we would have taken Kenneth Parnell, (The pedophile who molested Steven Stayner) out and shot him. Then he would never have gotten out of prison to attempt what he did to another boy.

Well, I hope I answered all the questions. It was fun deflecting all the whiffle ball shots. Are there any more emotional and illogical questions from the left?

Again let me say this in parting, I appreciate all the comments to my article. Well, all but the uncalled for crude remarks. It has been real, and I hope to pi** you people off some more in the near future because I like being challenged by emotional liberals.

Always remember that until you liberals come up with logical reasons as to why I may be wrong, you will lose the debate with me every time.

God Bless you all and to all a good night.

Hay guise, am I late for the painstakingly manufactured White Male Victim outrage? (By which I mean “loser festival.”)

I agree with Katie, this would be wonderful if it was satire.

The dogmatic devotion to logic in this thread dismays me. Please go read some Hume…

Of course, there are other things that dismay me, such as the author’s ability to compose such a shallow and twisted analysis and the general (but not complete, thank goodness) disregard for any serious analysis of the situation by most parties involved.

But I find it more humorous to tell those who claim incorrectly to be logical about the flaws even in being logical than to attempt to argue with them logically.

Always remember that until you liberals come up with logical reasons as to why I may be wrong, you will lose the debate with me every time.

OneVine, I’m curious. Do factual errors count as “logical reasons as to why I may be wrong”? The reason I ask is that I caught one here.

And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.

Well, no…, unless you count “around the world” to be the US and other Anglo-Saxon democracies. At the time, Germany had no suffrage, period. Their last election was in 1933. The Soviet Union had a form of “women’s suffrage” – women also had the freedom to vote for the Communist party. (Do you think that counts? I don’t.) France didn’t give the vote to women until 1944, and Japan did the same until 1945. I think I’ve named all the major belligerents in the conflict, except for China (for which I have no idea).

This isn’t a key part of your argument, but it does undermine the remainder.

I’m more conservative than the rest of you wimps! I’m just saying what the rest of you are all to scared to say!

How about this: Why don’t we just kill all women? That way we’ll never have to worry about the wives of strong, logical leaders having influence over their husbands!!

YES!!!! Follow me, ladies, to the gulag.

Editors note: C’mon now that is an overly emotional response! You’re making the author’s point when you behave that way, you do realize that don’t you?

You sound really emotional in this article, are you sure you’re not carrying around a vagina with you?

Naumadd
the article is a diatribe too afraid to say what it wants to say

No, I pretty much said what I wanted to say.

Down and Out of Sài Gòn
When you argued to take it away, you ignored the other 100+ countries in the world with female suffrage.

Where in the article did I argue the idea of taking away their right to vote? Please read the article before you start thinking of a response.

Chris
This law is completely logical. It is designed to save lives.

No it’s not. It was designed for the helmet industry who donated heavily to the Democrat party and politicians who passed it. It guaranteed an industry will make enough money to keep feeding the state DNCs coffers.

your belief in a 2000 year old book is completely based on logic, and has nothing at all to do with emotion!

I will hold the evidences in the Bible up to scrutiny any day. Can you do the same for the stuff you read? You really ought to read the Bible some time, it will enlighten you, really. And it will not burn in your hands.

Paul
“Men and women process information differently! Duh! Their brains are wired slightly differently and this makes input come a little different in the output form between men and women.”

Thanks for making my point

Chris
Also, the concern about global warming is not about polar bears.

I did not say global warming was about the polar bears. I said the way they used the picture of the Polar Bear on the Ice Berg was to tug at heartstrings of emotional people who think the bear is stranded because he cannot get back to the main continental ice shelf.

Then people will believe the lie about Global Warming. You really need to read Anthony Watt’s science blog and you will learn the truth about the Great Global Warming Scam. It is all based on emotion to get your money!

As I said bears can swim over 100 miles without tiring, but that fact does not work into their propaganda.

It was the biggest war in history because we had greater technology than at any other point in history. Not because of women.

Wrong, it was the biggest war because more countries then ever before fought in it. Thus the two capital W’s as in “World War”. Also I did not say it was big because of the women. Wow, you really need to learn some reading comprehension. I wrote,

“And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.”

You really need to read that part a couple of times. It might help your inability to comprehend what it says.

So the point that men have gotten us involved in most wars still stands.

Ever her of “Helen of Troy”? or “Cleopatra”? how about “Queen Elizabeth of England” and “Queen Isabella” of Spain? You need to study history a bit more then you have. Regardless of who is in power, wars are inevitable. I just wanted to point out that women elected the ones in power at the time of WWII, to show how they too can get us into wars.

It shows your own insecurities and discomfort with anything that challenges traditional gender roles.

I am very comfortable with strong intelligent capable women. Have you ever heard of Ann Coulter, or Margette Thatcher? I just do not buy into the lie that women can do everything a man can do. Just as I do not believe men can do everything women can do. What is it that scares today women away from being a beautiful feminine creature God created them to be?

Why must they demand that men accept them as if you were a man. I thank God that he made women to need men and to nurture our children, just as I am glad God made men to need a women to cleave to, love, and protect.

You really are missing out if you think America should be an emotional basket case like the socialist world of Europe is.

I’m quite impressed by how emotional this article was, seeing as you so hypocritically claimed that women are the more “emotional” of the genders. Also, you may want to invest in a good argumentive writing class or two at your local community college, because frankly I’ve seen better quality pieces written by middle schoolers.

Chris, your own bias is showing:

“I feel sorry for them. They have lived their entire lives under the belief that they are inferior to men, and that they shouldn’t be allowed the same rights. All because of people like OneVike.”

I’m one of the women you target with this absurd statement. In your mind, I suppose, any woman who fails to tow the feminist line must be severely oppressed and suffering.

I’m a woman who finds programs like the welfare system a disgrace from which we may never recover . It is a system born of sympathy and based on need rather than the ideas of freedom, the inherent dignity of every human being, and real abilities and opportunity. This feel good idea has over the decades robbed individuals of their hopes and dreams and destroyed families and communities. It has ensured a permanent, dependent class and it offers only abject poverty. This program was put in place by men but it was encouraged, cajoled and pressed into being by emotion (the feminine response).

This is but one example of the type of emotional response OneVike deplores; I’ll give you that he is quite emotional about it.

You also wrote:

“…concern about global warming is not about polar bears. It is about the possible extinction of the human race. What could be a more logical pursuit then trying to save ourselves? Oh, wait, I forgot. Things like protective measures to keep people from dying are apparently illogical to OneVike.”

I’ll ignore the snide remark; I’ve been known to make a few of those myself.

What makes the “GW/saving ourselves” pursuit illogical is the fact that it is not based on science or logic. The adament pursuit is driven by emotions…fear and longing. Fear of the unknown and longing for a pristine, perfectly controlled environment.

Opposing points of view and opinion, even opinion expressed by well known highly respected experts and scientists in related fields, are dismissed and rebuked. “GW Deniers” are said to be a part of the kook fringe; they are nut cases, or they are dismissed as greedy…the old standby. Yet consensus, the GW mantra for carte blanche on policy, is not consistent with the scientific method. Whatever other games are in play it is clear that politics and opportunistic posturing, rather than real concern or valid scientific interest, are driving this movement from the top. The emotional need for fame, and greed, are the forces driving those in control of political pressures.

A logical response to concerns would be measured and would follow adequate scientific proof. It would not leap ahead on conjecture and theory. Some of the changes at the federal and the global level that are being pushed on us with growing speed are quite possibly capable of creating povery and disease like you and I have never imagined. The problems may sound scarey to you but the unintended consequences of proposed changes are equally scarey and they aren’t even being considered just as the consequences of the welfare system were not adequately considered in 1964.

Good night Tina;
It has been a real interesting day. Do not be surprised if this goes on all week. Someone alerted the lefties, but that is a good thing. Battling the enemy is better then singing to the choir even if you too disagree with my premise. Again good night.

I’d like to thank those of you who have taken the time to participate in this discussion and are new to Post Scripts. We appreciate the visit, welcome your comments and sincerely hope you will return again to join us. You’re a lively group, that’s for sure.

Thank you OneVike; it’s been fun. If it goes on for awhile that’s great!

I don’t disagree with the premise. I think that the topic makes everyone a little emotional, including you…lol…and goodnight back atcha.

Yeegoshalmighty we sure have a lot comments on this! I hope we have all said our piece? I get to be poster 101!

At first, I thought this was a joke. You sound like an angry 16 year old with serious mommy issues. Have you sought out professional help yet?

Also, learn the difference between then, and than.

our country has become one of whiny a**holes. i wouldn’t blame it all on the women, though. our male leaders aren’t doing much good either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. With fools like you it’s no wonder the republican party isn’t doing better. It’s going to be fun watching the “Base” of the Republican party drag the sane members underwater with them. have fun living in caves 😛

As a classical liberal (ie: conservative) I reject every aspect of this misogynistic tripe. It is based on pure conjecture and speculation. Nothing written in this tragic attempt at language tries to actually be argued in a way that it can be backed up, nor can even be backed up by ANY, and I mean ANY, of the assertions written. This is twisted social-conservative tripe. Even social-conservatives should/would wince at this.

Even more tragically impressive is that this emotion laden diatribe, claiming to be logic, doesn’t have any logic. It claims to blast emotion…yet emotion is the very and only thing this ‘report’ uses. Unreal.

I didn’t like winning elections anyway…

So once upon a time a man had to watch over his little boy. Some of the man’s friends came over and during a break, the man spotted his little boy about to stick a fork in the electrical socket. The man then bumped his friends and said “hey, watch this!”

Flip it.

The same little boy is being watched by his mother this time, she spots the little boy again about to stick the fork into the socket again. She screams and grabs the little boy and tells him to never do that again. He now runs away and plays but constantly thinks about what happens if he sticks the fork in the socket until one day, when mother isn’t around he does it again. He learned but if mother had been around again, he would have never learned that putting forks in socket would hurt.

Have you considered that the industrial revolution might have had more to do with a changing political climate than women’s suffrage? In fact, women’s suffrage itself can probably be attributed to the industrial revolution… Maybe what we should do is smash all our machines and go back to dirt farming, then we can finally be free of our overly emotional mood-swinging overlords.

Interesting article. I think the best thing to take away from this is just for people to understand that there is a whole emotional vs logical based realm going on right underneathe politics, never mind if it comes from women or not.

I can’t think of anything more vapid than a persuasive piece with no real conclusion. You just repeat the same thing over and over. You blame the societal ills of today on women voting. You claim women are too emotional and thus when they vote they vote for the wrong reasons. In a nutshell, you are trying to build a case that women should not be allowed to vote.

Then you say you don’t think they should be denied the right to vote.

These two things seem to be pretty exclusive to each other. You blame so much on women voting, and yet you think they should keep voting. This leads me to believe one of the following:

1.) You don’t actually believe women are a problem and are just engaging in sophistry.
2.) You are letting your emotions get in the way from actually posting the conclusion you are leading everyone to.
3.) You are just fine with America failing as a country despite knowing how to save her. Mainly because you want to be politically correct.

So what is the point of this article but to rant to no end? It’s ironic that someone who claims women are so illogical does not reach the logical conclusion of something they write.

this is retarded

Lol, and Republicans wonder why they’re losing seats in Washington like it is a game of musical chairs.

Not another St. Ronnie Raygun in office? Oh the horror!

And republicans wonder why they have become a dead party.

I’m a woman, and I am a little offended by this article. I don’t like how you assume every woman thinks with their emotions and not logic. I consider that extremely ignorant. We are not the “emotional vote” and men are not the “logical vote”. Both men and women posses both emotion and logic. I’m offended, coming from a man, you think you have the right to say we think with our emotions and not logic, I’ll tell you right now I think more logically than most men I know. And to say, women were strong for standing behind men and their vote? Did you ever think the point is so that we are independent from men? so that we can voice our OWN opinion, not trying to sway a man to voice ours for us.
but thanks.

kingcomrade!

I do not accept your presentation of thesis-as-fact.

First of all, you hint that women voters have lead us more towards socialism, yet you have not provided any empirical evidence leading to the establishment that socialism is indeed better than capitalism. Logically speaking, both systems have yet to prove long-term viability. They are both relatively new inventions, and have each been shown to have their own set of weaknesses.

Secondly, you are making the assumption that things are worse as a direct result of women voters. I could just as easily say something like “Things have been better since the 19th amendment because we haven’t had any civil wars, infant mortality rate is down, civil rights have improved dramatically, child labor protections have improved, and social security has come a long way in helping retirees.” See how that works? Those arguments may or may not have any logical merit, but people who agree with it will willingly regurgitate it as a valid argument.

Thirdly, you have made the following assumptions: that “the end is coming”, our country will be somehow forever weakened in the future, women are the direct cause if said permanent weakening should occur, that we all know exactly what you mean by what it means to think “more with their hearts then with their brains”. All of the above ideas are founded seemingly on subjective reasoning which you have failed to provide the foundation for.

Lastly, your argument sounds like you are saying the main problem of our representative government is that those that vote influence the elections. That’s how representative government is SUPPOSED to work. Don’t like it? Try to change it through the vote. Can’t change it? Move somewhere else that has less freedom/equality, and more logic.

“Why must they demand that men accept them as if you were a man. I thank God that he made women to need men and to nurture our children, just as I am glad God made men to need a women to cleave to, love, and protect.”

This, I think, gets us to the heart of the matter. How can anybody argue from a position of claimed logical superiority, when they take one of the bases of their argument from a book of stories written millennia ago by some tribes in the middle east? There is no purely logical reason to believe the contents of this book. The decision to accept it as truth is emotionally motivated – faith is by its very nature an emotional and not a logical decision. It is the decision to believe something in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove it. A logical decision would require some compelling evidence.

You say that women are not logical creatures. Well, I’m afraid to have to inform you that human beings are not logical creatures. Research (conducted by both men and women, on both men and women) shows us that both men and women are motivated by emotions when making decisions. You say that men are more logical – but your definition of logical seems to be ‘somebody who agrees with me’. Your religious and other opinions betray you as being as emotionally motivated in your decision-making as anybody else.

Gosh your an idiot

“America has become a country of whining, sniveling, emotional pansies ”

I couldn’t have summed up your article any better. Start taking some responsibility for your country rather than pointing blame.

“I see an America that will never again be what our forefathers envisioned”

And this is patently absurd. Your forefathers envisioned true equality. Not your “equal as long as it suits me” c*ap. You sicken me.

why dont we replace politicians with computers that make logical decisions/laws for us AKA skynet. this would eliminate bipartisanship and make the world a better place until the day we are completely void of emotion….

Get AIDS and die.

Editors Note: This poster in no way represents the spirit or desired content on Post Scripts. We don’t normally delete comments for content but I considered it with this one.

This is a warning…similar comments in future will be deleted.

Oh look! Men hating on women, and women who probably get beat by their husbands, commenting agreement on this horse pile.

Women are more emotional than men. *yawn* Giving women the power to vote is destructive. *yawn* Women’s old place in society behind her husband worked just great! *yawn*

Do you have any new bigoted stereotypes to throw out, or are you just so unoriginal as to recycle decades old c*ap?

So does this mean that gay men shouldn’t be able to vote as well? Considering that they’re considered to be more emotional than heterosexual men. And should lesbians then get the right, but straight women no?

A vote is a vote, saying people never voted with their emotions before the 19th amendment is not only silly, but a lie.

I am not sure I can see where you’re coming from on this one. I mean, you do make some logical points, but I have met quite a few cold, and logical women in my day… I suppose I have met more emotional ones, but that is how I have always understood it, women were the more emotional of the sexes. I have also met my fair share of men that were raised by women, they don’t know how to provide, or hunt, clean, gather… Which in today’s day in age equates to working, and being a productive member of society. It goes a lot further then men being as women would so crassly put it, the “dominate of the sexes.” it is that this is the roll men fill, in society, and in nature.

I do agree that America is being emasculated though, and there are a lot of “feel good” laws that get passed to please the bleeding hearts, regardless of sex. The term “Nanny State” comes to mind. I don’t need the government telling me how to be safe, or that I am required to wear a helmet. It is like the push to make smoking illegal, everyone who does it knows it is bad for them, but they keep doing it. People who ride bikes without helmets understand that they are taking a risk that could very well get them killed., but all of life is a risk, you could put that helmet on and get struck by a car, and get your head run over…The helmet wont protect that. But, this is just as much a fault of man as it is woman, all the fathers that are out, working 60 hours a week instead of teaching their sons how to fix a car, or use power tools. It isn’t too late by any means, men just have to take back their masculinity, and for that to happen our sons need to be taught how to be that provider, and that protector, because that is what women want a majority of the time in a man.

I can see how someone could make this statement, but I don’t really see how anyone would buy into it, who was born after 1950, It seems kind of “detached” from reality… At any rate, it really doesn’t matter, women can vote and at this point it would be easier to change a force of nature, then the constitution, especially an Amendment where the people affected by it are the majority in this nation.

All men start out as women in the womb. “OneVike” how about posting your words with your actual name instead of hiding behind pseudoanonymity like a coward? You afraid of what empowered women with equal rights will do to you?

Scientific understanding, logic, and reasoning. The last 8 years under GW showed that Republicans were lacking all of the above, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to vote……..

Men are a minority in America and in the world. To suggest that they should be denied a vote is, on it’s face, anti-democratic and consequently anti-American. Until the end of the article, this was a poorly supported yet logical essay. Though recorded history to many peoples standards can be considered truth, simply saying “look at history” without presenting USEFUL examples is a joke.

If you are in secondary school you would get a B for this. If you are a grown man you should feel embarrassed.

Good thought provoking stuff. Thank you.

Have you all gone insane?

It wasn’t only women’s suffrage that started the downfall of America. I believe it really started with feminism, and taking away women from the homes. Mostly it was the smoking. Women started smoking at the same time Feminism started. They smoked because it was the only way they could act just like men. Thank god smoking is becoming more illegal. Next step get rid of that darn alchol problem. Women’s suffrage, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Heroine, a mainly Marjiuana cause most of the problems in America.

what absolute drivel. the writer goes on and on about logic but seems to lack even the basic understanding of a simple syllogism.

one thing that i would like to say is that women can lead just as well as men. just look to the celts. they had many women leaders and are considered one of the greatest civilisations of all time.

also of note are that men are also emotional too. we just express our emotions differently or hide them. it should also be mentioned that violent behavior only begets violence behavior. you can discipline children without hitting them. hitting children is just a cop out for lazy parents who don’t want to put the effort into being real parents. i for one never want to rule through fear. whether at work or at home i want to be respected not feared.

now i could go on and rip this essay apart shred by shred but the writer doesn’t even list their source sites which means they have no facts to back up what they’re saying. oh wow this author is ranting about being emotional but without any cites to back the assertions all they’re doing is trying to pull on our heart strings with a value debate instead of a policy debate.

ya happy now b**ch

Tina:
“I’m a woman who finds programs like the welfare system a disgrace from which we may never recover . It is a system born of sympathy and based on need…”

These are some good Christian values, huh? Jesus would never want you to have sympathy or to help the needy…

Tina replies: A Christian is well aware that helping the needy is a personal responsibility. Government bureaucracy wastes a lot of money that could go directly to aid the truly needy. government programs encourage neediness and that is degrading to people. Charity should be personal, from the heart…not cold handouts that keep people stuck in their circumstances.

What makes the “GW/saving ourselves” pursuit illogical is the fact that it is not based on science or logic.

How surprising. Except that, you know, there is massive scientific consensus on the issue.

“GW Deniers” are said to be a part of the kook fringe; they are nut cases, or they are dismissed as greedy…”

This is because there’s MASSIVE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the issue. And they are greedy. Most research in the area of climate science that doesn’t indicate global warming to some degree is research that’s been sponsored by oil companies. But surely they have our best interests at heart! Drill baby Drill!

Tina replies: Scientist who don’t tow the GW line are denied funding in university settings. Your claim about oil company funding is grossly inaccurate and designed to oppress opposing evidence.

“Yet consensus, the GW mantra for carte blanche on policy, is not consistent with the scientific method.”

Oh, I see…so the consensus of a large group of scientists, drawing conclusions from evidence collected during research…that’s not a good basis for policy. Well, since you don’t think your gender should have the vote anyway, could you please just stay home on election day from now on? You’re voting from an extremely uninformed place, and you obviously have no interest in learning anything about the subjects you speak on.

Tina replies: Some of the conclusions are based on scientific discovery but discovery by other scientists find otherwise. In fact a large, and growing, group of scientists disagree are beginning to speak out and have written to the UN about their concerns. They have not been as widely published (same problem as the funding issue).

Einstein said that if even one scientists disagreed with his theory he did not have proof. Consensus has been based on projections made by computer models that don’t take the sun’s influence, for instance, into consideration. consensus is a political tool…fool.

You, and pretty much every last person who wrote in support of this opinion piece, are not even remotely thinking for yourselves. Your comments boil down to, “Hell yeah, women did destroy this country!” “Hell yeah, democrats are destroying this country, thanks to the women who vote them in to office!” “Global warming is a lie!” “My faith in God is based on logic and evidence!”

Very original thought. Way to really put the old thinking caps on.

Also, anyone praising Anne Coulter needs to take a good hard look at themselves. Seriously. That woman is a vitriolic liar. Her books are just FILLED WITH LIES. You can easily see evidence of all of them. There are numerous websites devoted to pointing out how many LIES she tells. SHE IS A LIAR. But you won’t look at the evidence. Obviously. Evidence is what leads people to believe in evolution and global warming. Get that stuff away from me!

Tina replies: Yeah..go ahead…Run! Methinks you are as unwilling to look at other points of view for value as you accuse others of including Ann Coulter.

Well,
The entire argument is based on the idea that women are the reason ’emotional’ laws are passed. Take, for example, a child on a skateboard. Wearing a helmet in that situation is logical. If the child falls off there is a chance that the child could hit its head on a curb. This could cause brain damage. Sure I never liked being told to wear a helmet but like brushing your teeth you would regret it if you didn’t.
Next problem ‘Marxism’ is looked at with way too much fear. Many Americans hear that word and get scared without knowing what it means. Sure Marxism is extreme but it is the description of Marx’s utopia, and has never been achieved. Socialism is a working form of government. Just look at Cuba, the people don’t earn much but they have some of the best health care in the world, much better than the average American’s health care. Plus all those bailout policies that are keeping America afloat are in actual fact, socialist policies.
But that’s not the biggest problem with the article. The author was certainly a man who forgot that pretty much half of the world’s population is made up of women. It seems to make sense that they should be represented. Even if they do make emotional decisions, thats half the world acting in that way.
This article is a rant by someone who had an idea and didn’t think it through or a sexist despite the claims of not being sexist.

Completely true; 19th amendment should never have occurred. Problem is that women want to become like men. Women want to do everything men do – they’re tired of being women.

Let me start by saying this: would it have hurt to run your text through a spell checker before posting it? I would like to think you put a lot of thought and consideration into this but a few too many mistakes tell me you were writing on “emotion”.. or something.

Your conclusion is based on a false premise, that our great country is ending and it’s all because of emotions.

If you really believe that helmet companies influenced that CA law, then it’s an instance of corruption, not emotion. Corruption in politics existed before the 19th Amendment, believe it or not.

Do you really believe there would be no stupid laws made if women could not vote?

If we can’t fix our domestic problems without giving equal rights to half the population, then we’re just not a really good “Greatest nation in the world”, are we?

Oh yea, and using polar bears to “sell” global warming. Yea, that’s advertisement. People do that. Intelligent people don’t just accept that. If I accepted everything I see on tv, last election cycle I would’ve had to believe I was going to either vote for a terrorist or the guy who knew nothing with the girl vp who knew even less. Pointing out that pictures for a certain cause are created to play to your emotions is kind of.. obvious. Try and tell me that there is no emotional advertisement created for pro-life, intelligent design, anti-gay, and other conservative movements.

And btw, I think our country is doing fine, despite all its problems. If there’s supposed to be a 10 year rule before history can judge GWB, we can at least wait 1 Obama year before declaring the end of America.

Look at Europe: currently more socialist and more successful than America.

Look at your own history: Republicans have always increased the national debt, Democrats have always reduced it.

Were it not for Women and ‘castrated men’ voting in Dems you’d be a whole lot more of a serious mess than you are now (and let’s not forget it was the Republican moron you elected in 2001 who got you into that mess seeing as Clinton left a surplus).

If you want to put 2 and 2 together and get 5 then that’s up to you, but the facts would disagree with your assessment.

If it wasn’t for a bunch of ’emotional’ women, your ‘logical’ gun-toting conservative a**es wouldn’t even be here. Republicans like Rush limbaugh should be put in jail for their rabble rousing two faced ways. These are the true sinkers of this country. Now go to your room!

So allowing 50% of our population the right to vote was a mistake? Because *supposedly* women are less logical? Painting with broad strokes, are you not?

You also mentioned increasing the voting age and requiring “examination” before a person can vote.

The voting age was reduced not because of liberals but because we, as a nation, thought those young men who fought and died for us should at least get some say in our government.

Now, as for your “testing” of people before they can vote idea. That’s old hat, buddy. You might know it by the name of Jim Crow. It was somewhat popular down in the South where it was overwhelmingly abused to disenfranchise a significant portion of the population. A conservative legacy to be proud of, I’m sure.

Although testing people on intelligence before they are allowed to vote would be an interesting idea. Especially considering that highly educated people tend to vote democratic, there are more women attending universities than men, and that our senior population tends towards conservative principles yet would probably face challenges if forced to take “intelligence” examinations. Voting based on intelligence could very well backfire on you and put a democratic lock on this country.

It seems with the recent shift to the left in national politics you’ve begun preaching the insidious benefits of political marginalization. Women helped sweep the democrats into office thus we should look back fondly on a time when women didn’t have a vote. Democrats garnered more of the young vote than republicans therefore we should raise the minimum voting age.

It’s crass and immature to move the politcal goalposts because you lost one election cycle. I’ve always viewed conservatism as an exclusionary party and liberalism as an inclusionary party. After reading this little blogwork piece my opinion of conservatism has only been reinforced.

Wow. Well I honestly can say I will never be truly able to understand the point of view shared in this article. I could try and convey a point of view, but will fail to convince anyone reading this as these are not ideas, they are beliefs. You believe that we were created by god out of dirt because it says so in a old book and has been taught for many years. You may be right, but I fail to see the logic in it. The problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that you will never see any other point of view because of your strong beliefs.
I think the underlined topic is really about the ability to evolve and change as a society. Should we always look back and wish things had not changed? or should we focus on the future and figure out how to deal with the inevitable evolution of our society? I know you say you don’t think we should or could take away a woman’s right to vote. But it sound like you would want to if it was possible, that in itself I find a little presumptuous. I believe the problem in America is far larger than the right people being able to vote, I think the problem is about education and empowerment. You argue for small government, and let the people sink or swim, but aren’t the people the ones driving the change? I for one welcome change, and spend my time focusing on how to improve what we have and prepare for the future, I worry about people that spend their time talking about “the good ol’ days” and how we never “should have”..
Change is inevitable!
in 100 years this argument will be so irrelevant as women would have had the chance to participate in the same programs/education/work experience as men have for many generations. I do believe in general men and women are different, and somewhat think different, but does that mean we must assign tasks to each gender and not the other? Isn’t that a little worrying? I mean, there have been societies that assign the populace their tasks/jobs based on what they think is right before no?
Also, who gets to decide what gender gets what tasks? is it based on gender alone? or aptitude?
if not aptitude, is this really logical? not to pick the best person for the job?

thank you.

I highly disagree with you. HOWEVER, you have presented yourself in an organized, clear, and professional manner, and you make your points well and back them up. What I am glad to see is someone who isn’t just spewing at the mouth with their opinions, but rather putting thought into them before speaking. Like I said, I disagree, but that’s okay. We’re all allowed to have our own views.

Logic and Emotion are both required to be considered human, thus, there must be balance between the two. Emotionalism be itself is insanity. Logic on its own is inhumane.

I am Chinese and our wisdom tells us that A Nations Integrity is found in the Home.

The analysis of this thoughtful articles does not however address the root cause. That being, in my opinion, the western principal of individualism. Perhaps it was never considered that this principal would be adopted by women.

Westerners no longer value family, or place the family above your own individual concerns. If a nation does not support the family, how can it be a nation?

I would ask the author, if he agrees with this statement and why or why not?

It seems that in your history, your women have emotional or logical reasons to fight for a level of separation from their men. Perhaps this is the root cause?

This is to all those who have taken bits and pieces of my article and twisted them for your purpose of claiming my point is invalid. When I use an example to make a point it is for the purpose of covering a range of topics inside that one thought. One cannot fill an opinion piece with enough information to leave no doubt about the subject matter. If for instance the word world is used, it does not necessarily mean every corner of the known planet. It is a way of expressing the wide range of influence or coverage of any given point. If I were to say that women have the right to vote around the world, it does not mean that every country on this planet has given women that right. When are you people on the left ever going to take a whole thought process and consider what the writer is trying to convey?

Some of you you dislike the premise of my thought so much that you want to say something against it, but you have no good educated argument that you can come up with. So instead of debating the gist of my topic you pick at me on the point of my grammar. If I may have used an improper form of punctuation that made for bad grammar in one sentence, well my gosh crucify me. As for the ones who claim to be so aghast at the very thought that any one would dare to even use the words “women” and “wrong” in the same sentence, when did women become the perfect humans that have never been wrong. If you actually listened to the words in my piece while you were reading it, you would have noticed that I throw all blame on men for abdicating their God given authority.

Then there are those who do not have a good understanding of the English language so instead you like to use four letter words for every adjective. Do yourself a favor, find a thesaurus and look up a decent word that describes your thought. You will then at least be learning something in this process. Debate is one thing, but the out and out hate that is vomited from the left today is down right disgusting. Every day I see the left doing something that goes against all human reason, yet you stand by and quietly say nothing. Is there nothing that the leaders on the left can do that will make you turn your head? Can you not take even one morsel of the disgust you direct at conservatives and point it at the many appalling things you see your so-called leaders do and say?

Now I understand that many of you are young, your arguments and the words you use reveal your immaturity. However, some day you will wake up and wonder why you did and said many of the things you do today. When that day comes we on the right will gladly accept you with open arms. You see, many of us were once where you are now, young, immature, uneducated (in life,) confused, misled, and emotional. Those who do not eventually wake up, will forever be like Libby. You see, Libby is always trying to find a way to accept any immoral, disgusting, illogical idea the left comes up with because she cannot fathom the idea of ever agreeing with those on the right.

It doth not take huge bal*s to post inane drivel like this, just a tiny little brain. But do go on. I LOVE watching wingers implode on themselves. Your tears make me so very happy.

it’s logical for me to say you’re an idiot…the “once great republic” is still as great as ever, minus the coo coo birds like you that write this c*ap…the only thing you guys got is this “Marxist/Socialist” thing….GROW UP… join the rest of us in the adult world, would you?

its funny that the only thing you allow are post supporting your ridiculous position…if you hate America so much why don’t you leave…( sound familiar?)

Editors note: You can actually read can’t you? FYI, we have posted every comment with only slight editing to some to alter crude language.

Just like a man to blame bad things on women. What kind of close minded a** hole thinks like this? I hope I never see you on the street because I will kick you in the ba**s, based purely on my emotions and inability to make a logical decision.

Although the 19th amendmant contributed greatly, I think the ultimate downfall will be the diversity. As America grows, so will the intrests of her people. Sooner or later there will be so many parties, wanting so many things; the feminist group is just another one of those parties screaming. As a country we can’t satisfy everyone.

The article is interesting. There is little doubt women elected JFK and Bill Clinton. Right now the men of this country are an embarrassment.

The biggest problem is our government education system which brainwashes our children. Elementary school is a feminization process. High school and college are politically correct indoctrination camps.

If you believe in separation of church and state, you should also believe in separation of school and state.

I cannot believe that a person living in this time would have such a blatantly ridiculous view on the way things should be. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself. I am boggled by the ignorance of some people in this country!

This entire argument is based on the notion that women are irrational and men are rational. I cannot think of a better example of a falacy than this one. This theory of women being driven by thier emotions is one that has been around for ages; isn’t it time we updated our beliefs, especially in light of everything we know about the sexes now?

Funny how everyone who disagrees with the article does so on an entirely emotional basis. Rants, name calling, demonizations. No logic at all. The irony is almost overwhelming.

Nonsense. There is a better way than women resenting men and men resenting women. Read about it at 4theloveofmen.com.

Libby dearest, to a baby in the womb about to be slaughtered by abortion, women are definitely terrorists! Logical people do not allow their sexual urges to define them as a person.

You kind of lost me at “God-given responsibility” and the whole spanking of children bit. Spanking has been outlawed in Sweden for 50 years, and it’s not even an issue anymore. A person who wants to show their kids love here talk to them and hug them. If you want to impose your world view on children with violence, go ahead and try, but they will reject your view sooner or later, as kids do and shall.

As far as the emotional vote, I agree with you. People vote with their guts, not with logic. How that has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with women, I don’t really know.

Seen from a European’s perspective, the post above is medieval and inflammatory. Seeing all these posts agreeing with the poster, well, that’s just all my prejudices coming true.

your english is dreadful and your logic is dubious at best.

Waah! There are people who think differently than me! Waaah!

Yes, you are totally right. I cannot believe that I have never thought about what I had been taught about history over the past 90 or so years in such a light.

Your completely correct that women ultimately voting in their own self interests has caused the destruction of the U.S. in so many ways that you probably didn’t even realize some of them. However, in order for us to truly get back to just how great this country was as the founders intended it, we need to make sure that the right people vote.

We need to acknowledge that the interests of women are laughable, but also that of other minorities, or people younger than say 28, or the people who aren’t property owners, or (to make sure that were dealing with inflationary purposes since property is much easier to own nowadays) better yet, people who have a net worth of over $500,000 a year. This way, when we acknowledge that these people are voting in their own self interests, only the rich wealthy white men know what is best for this country, and their opinions are the only ones who matter.

Or, better yet, we can acknowledge that those who pay taxes have made an investment in this country, women included, and that denying or mocking their say in the investment is absurd, wrong, and most importantly counter-productive.

I’m not sure you understand what logic actually is. You define certain laws as emotinal and not logical without giving any kind of critera for what you consider to be an emotinal law. You also say that Regan called evil evil, completely ignoring that there is no locial definition of evil, calling someone or something evil is an emotonal appeal in its self. Thats why we dont have laws that can imprision someone for being evil, we have laws that punish specific crimes because the only way to punish someone fairly is to punish them based on what they have done. Calling someone evil is an attempt to turn someone into a one diminsonal character instead of a real person, Osama Bin Laden has probably been in love, he has a favorite food, he has children and probably loves them, he is a human being. I’m not telling you these things in order to illicit sympathy for the man (if I was this would be an emotional appeal) nothing would please me more than to see him brought to justice but he is not a one dimensional character, these one dimensional characters do not exist. You stated in the post that this last election was a “Marxist revolution” I am assuming your talking mainly about president Obama’s election then in your reply to some of the comments you call Obama a fascist, I’m not sure these words mean what you think. Finally I’d like to understand how you see emotional arguments vs logical arguments, So I submit this, you stated that the United States was a logical nation before the 19th amendment. The civil war ended before the 19th amendment was ratified so was slavery logical or illogical? If it was logical then it should not have ended and a logical nation would not have ended it, if it was illogical then why would a logical nation such as ours (as you claim) ever have tolerated it? Also could you give me one logical argument aginst slavery versus one emotional argument? I’m just trying to get a handle of how you are defining emotional versus logical arguments.

Lol 50% of the population shouldn’t have been given representation in America. Gotta love Right-Wing thinking, only those who agree with me are correct and allowed my validation.

News flash, not every Conservative is correct and not every Liberal is incorrect. If you cant come to the point in existence to allow that those you disagree with you have valid points then Im not sure what kind of country you want to live in.

“I truly believe that in 20 years, things will be so bad in this country that these days will be looked back upon as the good old days.”

Yes, since the previous eight years were so full of goodness and civility.

Relax folks, this is either a joke (nobody actually believes these things), or a troll move – you know, where someone says something blatantly outrageous so that people will pay attention to them. Than again, perhaps this guy is just looking to get on Rush Limbaugh’s show, another guy who got known through his troll moves.

I completely agree with your point re: WWII. Women clearly influenced the German electorate into voting Hitler into power (he was an art student and a vegetarian, after all), and they did nothing to prevent his attempt to conquer Europe, and later the world, through a brutal military campaign. His “final solution” was also most likely Eva Braun’s idea, and he just ran with it. It was clearly an illogical, feminine response to try to stop him.

Responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was also a completely feminine, and therefore irrational, response.

It’s tough having a small unit. Look at the type of writing it results in. Poor little boy.

I am also a woman, and while I don’t expect this comment to get read, I’ll post anyway on the off-chance of my opinion being heard.

The writer of this article is an idiotic Republican machine. The idea that women are not logical, analytical beings goes beyond sexist, and I dearly hope that this kind of thinking isn’t in power. Women do not hold a lower position than men, and despite being their reproductive counterparts, we are not their counterparts anywhere else. We are not their opposites, nor are we complementary. The only reason that men and women are physically different is either the random mutations of genetic drift, or the need of our species to reproduce and survive. This is the reason for breasts, hips, empathy, and the chemicals in the brain released durig sex and childbirth that form strong emotional connections between women and their mates and children. The long-established social order is not there for a reason, it is only there because for the longest of times no one questioned it. The easiest example I can come up with is our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. Chimpanzee societies are patriarchal. They let the men run the show, much as humans do. And chimpanzee society is vastly violent, often killing and eating their babies for no observable reason. Conversely, Bonobos live in matriarchal societies, and are significantly more peaceful because of it.

Even if this article were true, I would like to point out that the wars since WWII(if you can even call most of them wars) have been getting smaller. Korea killed half the people that WWI did, Vietnam killed half of the people that Korea did, Desert Storm was a tiny loss, and the Iraq War hasn’t yet gotten up to the death toll of Vietnam either. The Soviets fell because of officials elected after the suffrage movement. To suggest that our nation has declined because women have moved to the foreground is a farce.

As a parting statement, calling Obama Marxist doesn’t make it so. Our government was half-socialized before Obama was even known outside of Illinois, and his only proposed policy that can be called socialist by any thinking person is healthcare, which, may I remind you, has to be pushed through Congress first. That’s over 400 Republicans and Democrats. If this country becomes more socialized, Obama is not the only one to blame.

I would hope you would all see reason. Or, at the least, stay out of public office.

I agree that the woman’s right to vote changed the dynamics in this country.

I also agree that logical argument needs to balance itself back into our culture. But I disagree that this is a liberal/conservative, or male/female issue. Yes, women are different from men, and yes, in the emotional area you have talked about. But listening to male politicians is not listening to logic, it’s listening to politics. It’s listening to lobbyists and personal agendas.

So, we can point fingers all day long. But one of the biggest problems right now is pointing fingers without any solutions. What needs to happen is a teaching of logical thinking and democracy beginning at the elementary level and continuing it throughout high school graduation. And those adults who never were taught need to audit a course at a University.

And remember that logical argument will still not take everyone in the same direction; it will not get rid of the liberals as well as it will not get rid of the conservatives.

And your statement about the lefties being the enemy is also a root problem in all of this. Differences don’t make enemies, differences are what this country is about, and if they are embraced and argued logically, oh the dynamics this country could witness!

Are you misogynists on crack? You blather on about “logic” but can’t manage to find it yourselves. “The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.” Yikes. That’s a big freaking stretch for anyone who has a remote understanding of history. Do you understand Causation and Correlation at all????

Ok Maybe Hitler’s mom didn’t love him enough…and maybe the sanctions and reparations that saddled Germany with more debt than a ruined economy could handle and opened the door for Hitler to seize power was foisted upon the men of Europe by those uppity American women…

Yeah that’s it. Stupid American women forced the weak willed Europeans to prevent Germany from rejoining the international community and recover economically (because most non American women couldn’t vote until after WWII was over so they clearly had nothing to do with it).

…geez…

None of you should be allowed to vote. You’re as emotionally unstable as you think the women around you are.

I know the author did not intend to say that women should not be allowed to vote, so this is to all the OTHER commentators who don’t enjoy women’s suffrage…

You are morons.

As a democracy, the law of the land is decided by those in the majority. So to say that the nation has been perverted by those who do not vote “correctly” or have liberal ideals just means that as a conservative, YOU are a minority at this point in time. The very essence of America is its ability to be many things at once including liberal and conservative. To say that this nation has changed from what our forefathers envisioned is contradiction in that they had the foresight to allow the nation to evolve according to the ideals of the majority. They could not even IMAGINE all of the difficulties and situations that we endure today, but they made our nation flexible enough so that future generations could make provisions for that. They did not know what technologies would be available to us or how the country would grow to become what it has today.

If the majority of the nation chooses to follow their emotion’s more than their logic, I say let them. We need their input as much as we need logic. BOTH are important, the same as BOTH conservatives and liberals are needed for the health of this nation

The author of this blog really needs to learn more about logic. They teach that stuff in college now. Even ‘conservative’ colleges cover it now. You should check it out.

A sample.

If someone has a different priority/premise/value than you, their behavior will be different. That does not mean they are acting illogically.

If you had the same set of priorities, you would probably behave the same way. Assuming you are not illogical.

All these women who are commenting on this page – who let you near a computer?

Go make me a sandwich.

I just need to say 3 words, evolution is a lie!

Theres some truth in what you say, I do think women tend to vote more for …”socialism”, but I dont think youre entirely rational yourself. You sound theocratic which is just as damaging to a country as communism is. And anyone who considers Ann Coulter rational is not thinking straight. She’s a lunatic; theres lunatics on the right and on the left.

The problem here is that EVERYONE buys and votes with their emotions and back up their decisions with logic. This is why the most popular color of car is red and TV’s are extra large, and why mudslinging tactics in politics have ALWAYS been popular. Look at all the right/left vitriol being spewed about in the comments here if you really want to see the point.

Yes, there are some folks who actually weigh the pros and cons of whatever it is they’re deciding (much like Ben Franklin might), but regardless of gender, these are maybe 1% of the population.

Men have NOT always been the rulers. Women used to run the show. When people started forming communities, the need for men to hunt and gather grew less as women took charge and organized farming and raising livestock. Men took back control in a fit of jealousy and we’ve been living in a patriarchal society ever since.

The majority of you are complete morons(including the author of this article). I can’t believe there are so many anti-woman freaks around still. It’s 2009. Get with the times, the 1940’s was 7 decades ago.

Why is it that most of the women I know are republicans then? I’m pretty sure that with the Republican party firmly entrenched with the religious right that it gets it’s share of women voters.

I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, pro-gun rights, etc. However, I am not liberal to the point of stupidity. If I thought it would work, I would be a socialist, but I’m not stupid. It doesn’t work. We need a smaller government with states taking back more of the power. We need to separate religion and personal freedoms from politics.

I would easily vote Republican if the party wasn’t so intrusive into personal freedoms and stopped bowing to the religious right. The old school, REAL republicans don’t exist anymore. The closest thing to them are Libertarians, and honestly, voting for a Libertarian president is pretty much throwing my vote away. I voted for Obama because I couldn’t stand what Cheney stood for socially. He is also so out of touch with modern society and the middle and lower classes that even fiscally, I couldn’t agree with him even though I don’t exactly agree with Obama either. If Clinton would have made it instead of Obama, I have no idea who I would have voted for. I despise her as much as Cheney.

Editors note: If you get a chance please tell me what Cheney stood for socially and in what ways he is out of touch with modern society.

The thing that bothers me the most is that voting for the lesser of two evils really doesn’t feel like expressing my right to vote.

Women are a huge boost in the number of votes for the smartest, strongest leaders.

first off the bat, according to the 2007 USA census, 50.7 percent of the population is women so a politician would need to win every vote from women to be elected, and judging by how many women agree with the poster i don’t see this happening. So while women do have power, both are about equal.

secondly, referring to socialism being a horrible thing that will sink countries, According to the 2007 United Nations, Socialist countries like Canada and Norway rank much higher than the USA so socialism cannot be that bad.

thirdly, animals can only survive within certain temperature brackets, so global warming as a logical and emotional side to it so do not state that global warming is a purely woman/emotional invented thing

Editors note: Some very credible scientists say the planet has been cooling over the past few years and that this is a natural cycle. Regarding the UN’s evaluation, I’d take that information with a grain of salt. It measures by a standard devised by socialists without consideration for other factors. Canadians come to America for certain procedures and services because they cannot get them in Canada or because they must wait too long to be served.

I think the ability to vote should be based on IQ. Stupid people don’t understand the issues and shouldn’t be able to influence the outcome of an election. Before registering, all potential voters should be given a questionnaire to see how intelligent they are, and if they fall below the average IQ (100), then they should be banned from voting for life (and also made infertile).

This would certainly mean that most Americans wouldn’t be able to vote, but then the rest of the world would be better off.

you guys are all a**holes. close minded rednecks

flood

One more thing Tina;

I do not deny I can get emotional in my debating sometimes, however when I make a decision that is important I try to step back and allow a moment or two, or longer, for logic to set in. That is my problem with this emotionally charged generation we live, everything they want is based upon their emotions. That I blame on the many social changes this country has gone through since the passing of the 19th amendment.

Tina replies: I appreciate clear-headed thinking. I am particularly appreciative of the valuable contribution strong thoughtful men make in our society. I think they have been mischaracterized by the women’s movement and in womens studies in ways that have been harmful to society and to family and individual life. I believe strong families are the basis for strong communities.

I also think that we have failed to address problems that are emotionally charged, like uplifting the the poor, from a position of reasobale thought. Much of what we do doesn’t work and emotion also keeps us from correcting.

I think in general women are less likely to approach problems from a position of logic or reasoning but we are not incapable of appreciating the value of logical thinking. I also think generally men are more likely to think logically and are less likely to be emotional. disfunctional training can turn this upside down making particular people cold and calculating or total basket cases emotionally.

Education could play a big roll in making all of us better voters. I think we have, for various reasons failed to hold to a high standard in this regard and because of this more than anything else we have seen a decline in the quality of voter preparedness, so to speak.

One thing I can say about you Onevike, you have the capacity to press buttons to get people thinking and talking.

We at Post Scripts especially appreciate those comments that are thoughtful and sincere…also the clever one liners that many have expressed. Quite honestly we can do without the potty mouth and comments made of only hate and vitriol.

The idea that our nation has gone through a ‘Marxist Revolution’ is simply ridiculous. Marx tends to play the role of bogeyman for most conservatives, however anybody that has actually read The Communist Manifest can very easily see that Obama is not a communist. His economic policy is Keynesian and fairly contradictory to communism. At the most you might be able to get away with calling our President a conservative socialist, which

“To this section belong economist, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.”

Marx loathed this form of government and found it to be the greatest threat to communism because it allowed the bourgeois to stay in power. Lets just say that Karl Marx probably wouldn’t have taken the time for tea with our President. It’s incredibly difficult to imagine any true christian wanting to get ride of the people listed above. It’s pretty evident that through speaking with and helping save whores, curing the blind, and feeding the poor that Jesus was one heck of a liberal.

Editors note: Most and Christinas conservatives would not “get rid of ” your list of people. we would just act on those things personally rather than through innefficient and cold government programs. Also liberal in the traditional sense is nothing like the progressive political movement we have come to call liberal…a misnomer IMHO.

Wow…this article was amusingly ironic in its histrionic melodrama and its childish immaturity…

The torpedo that sinks us will not be my right to vote, though I’m sure our country will incur many crippling blows from the hysterical political decisions made by bigots like you.

Successful troll is successful.

I just wanted to throw down my 2c on this subject..

Throughout the entire article the author never gave more than a handful of examples(Bad examples at that, if you have “hundreds” of laws passed each year you should be able to come up with something more convincing than child labor laws or otherwise laws to keep our children safe, My uncle, who was 37 at the time wiped out on a dirt bike and would have had his head cracked wide open were it not for his helmet, the law is there for SAFETY.)

I find it absolutely absurd that you would generalize on such a broad scope. Have you met every woman in the united states? No? THEN YOU CAN’T PUBLISH AN ARTICLE ACTING LIKE YOU DO. It’s called responsible reporting.

Freedom of Choice is what makes this country great. We literally have the ability to choose to do anything. Why would you take that away from someone? That sir, is un-American.

Oh my god I think I am going to puke

Editors note: Quick…grab a container!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOH

hahahaha

ha

hooooo

Nothing shows you are the party of ideas and the future like talking about how all the countries problems go back to the 19th amendment. I’m sold. sign me up. Maybe we can compliment the pre-vote testing that was used to keep blacks from voting too. Only this time we apply it to everyone and watch the Republican voting base wither away in the face of 3rd grade science and history questions!

spell check

nice satire. I lolled.

The reason Reagan was able to win over so many voters was because he ran on the principles of fiscal conservativism, not because of how logical he was. He didn’t push a pro-life agenda and try to take on other social issues like today’s conservatives do, which is why the party is in so much trouble. Most of today’s young voters (male and female) aren’t interested in social issues. Sorry, but I don’t care if gays get married or if someone has an abortion. When those things are your MAIN running points to appease a base, you’re going to fail every time.

The US hasn’t changed its views on abortion since the 60s, yet each and every Republican candidate is judged on that subject. Look at what happened to Mitt Romney – he got totally screwed because of it, and he would have been a great president.

you’re seriously nuts.

These are the amendments that need repealing:
Amendment 16 – Status of Income Tax Clarified
Amendment 17 – Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 19 – Women’s Suffrage
Amendment 23 – Presidential Vote for District of Columbia

My wife and I have discussed the issue of Amdt. 19 and the need to repeal it also. Repeal the 16th and the 17th (and get rid of the Federal Reserve bank) and the 19th is of not much damage.

Brilliant!! I love the irony. You guys are great. Keep this stuff coming. With any luck the right will make itself seem so reactionary and infantile that not even Rush himself can bring himself punch the card for the GOP.

That was the point right?

Honestly, congratulations. Marxists and Burkean conservatives everywhere will thank you for so neatly bowing out of your last pretense to relevancy and righteousness.

Holy crap! Stop complaining and produce something! You know what else emotional PEOPLE do? They whine. Teach, build, design or do something else that will help society. If you think the ship is sinking then grab a bucket. Don’t whine about the hole and who might have caused it. A lot of people companies haven’t let themselves be scared by talk of socialism, shrinking ships and whatever else. We adjusted and kept producing and were able to keep moving and keep hiring. Sometimes things are the way you think they should be. Such is life. All hands on deck. That is logic.

In 1920 women got suffrage and we have been suffering since. 😛

I am a woman, and I couldn’t agree more. Thank you for being brave enough to write what any logical, rational person can see for themselves. Fifteen years ago I wrote a college paper arguing that feminism was going to be the downfall of this country; it appears as though my thesis was correct. When people ask why violence, teen pregnancy and drug use is so rampant, I simply cite the fact that “mothers” are so busy voting this country into Nanny State-status, they’ve forgotten to actually BE mothers. It’s simple: mothers don’t do their job, so the State has to step in.

Somebody couldn’t get a date for the prom.

Um, learn how to spell the President’s, whom you so adore, name. please. It’s Reagan, not Reagen…and as far as Democrats in office. It was the Republican party that helped pass the 19th Amendment. Pres. Wilson was AGAINST it. He was a Democrat. Learn your history better prior to distorting it…you’ll sound smarter.

Don’t agree with everything but I think you’re right on many issues.

Women seek a social equilibrium even when it’s not realistic. The best of intentions don’t always lead to good results. What we end up with is greater and greater legislation that has no practical value.

Wow, I thought this was a joke as well. I’d say what’s holding back this country is ignorant religious hicks like yourself. The 1800s are over, deal with it. Your precious GOP is hurting because of the arrogant cowboy attitude of the past 8 years.

They’ve become so out of touch with the rest of the world that they’re falling behind. Just look at photos from the 2008 RNC. Old…white…men, that’s about all you see.

Surely, you jest. You perhaps try to mediate yourself by saying “women could and did influence men” before the right to vote was “unfortunately” relinquished, but your argument stands naked in the assertion that women are, in fact, inferior to men and do not deserve equal rights as human beings. Let us not forget the many male individuals who have wrought torment on this earth. Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot… the list goes on.

omg…so what america diluted some emotions in the laws…isn’t laws are the ways to govern people…isn’t being a little emotional also means being compassionate…isn’t beinga lawmaker is also being a caregiver to the people…how dare you writhe this type of trash??

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, don’t you just love satire…

Oh wait, your actually being serious?

This whole Republican fear of (non)socialism is getting hilariously out of control. For a bunch of people who think that emotions ruined America, you quickly forget that FEAR and ANGER are emotions, and that seems to be what’s driving the Republican party lately.

You are mindless. Normally I would laugh at people like you and others who have posted because you’re all idiots and hypocrites, but it makes me sad to know that there are actual people out there who believe this. It actually scares me. If it were men who were the only people who voted, your ass would be dead for saying something like this, but us “emotional” women stop that from happening because we just feel sorry for you.

Oh dear me, this voting is so confused for my poor feminine brain. If only a man would just tell me what to do I would be so less confused. All I can do is be emotional all day long, I think I shall go cry now. If only I had your manly powers of that magical logic which us simple women are missing.

Jesus had it right when he declared the blue eyed white male supreme in beauty, form, and thought.

Editors note: Jesus didn’t do any such thing. You know that sounds dangerously racists?

Sorry, OneVike, but you let fly with such inflammatory “supposes”, and we’re entitled to make inferences. We’re also entitled to pick at your reasoning.

For instance: “However it was that slow and methodical thought process that allowed for an orderly progression that worked for thousands of years.”

You crazy. This history of this planet, until very recently, consisted of war upon war upon war upon war. This last few hundred years, since us females decided we weren’t standing for it, there has been marked improvement.

But I suspect that this is actually what bugs you. You want your wars back.

The only thing I disagree with is that Democrats wouldn’t have been elected… they may have been still, they would have just fielded better candidates.

Have you read Marx? Does any of you know what a Marxist is? Really? Why do so many Americans have such disdain for intellect? Why are you so threatened? Go back to your Fox News.

So men/Republicans deal with truth and women/Democrats deal with feelings. That explains an awful lot. It’s good to know that following are just feelings, and not facts:

– We found no weapons of mass destruction or pre-2003 link to Al Qaeda in Iraq, invalidating the justification for a war that’s cost about a trillion dollars and cost about a million lives.
– The Republicans, when given control of all three branches of the Federal government, spent money more haphazardly and enthusisatically than the Democrats they’d always accused of being big spenders.
– After eight years of Republican control of the White House and a predominantly Republican Congress stretching back into the 1990s, the economy tanked worse than it ever has since the 1930s. Leading the tanking were Republican loyalists on Wall Street, who (we’ve always been told) needed massive tax cuts to help with their important work (and who got them many times over during the Bush years).

Yep, just feelings. Not like the good, manly facts we conservatives espouse. It’s also good to know that establishing chest-beating as the foundation of our foreign policy is a fact-based, and not feeling-based strategy as well.

What I’ve been wondering, though, is if we on the right hate America so much, why don’t we just move somewhere else?

Reagen was an actor and a tool of the Neo-Conservative movement that he claimed to be allied against in the beginning of his 1980s campaign.

Firstly, the founding fathers where extremely emotional people that believed in their hearts that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” How can you not get emotional just reading these words? They are full of passion.

You sir are the worst kind of neo-con. I bet you sit around complaining that blacks were better off as slaves than they are as free men and women.

Neo-cons and liberals alike want to dictate morality which is nothing but an emotional response to specific criteria. So you want to make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion (an emotional stance based on your own perception of reality) or you want the bible to be taught in school or you wish for homosexuality to be once again illegal. You should look in the mirror before passing judgment on others.

This has some merit. Where you lose your mind is saying if woman couldn’t vote, Dems wouldn’t win. 2004 where everyone was scared out of their shoes from beheading videos, facts and logic didn’t come in to play. It would seem that the Dems always lost beacuse they were worried about facts and figures and Repubs played to emotion. It seems the same thing happen in 2008, Dems facts and logic, Repubs emotion. It shows why one side is still hot about losing, “emotions” are running high. Boxers are in a bunch. Your next piece should be about emotional wimpy men. Like yourself.

Wait, I just read some of the comments…

This piece wasn’t a joke, was it? Damn, I was laughing pretty hard until I realized it was for serious.

Now I’m laughing harder. Some people are just silly!

“America has become a country of whining, sniveling, emotional pansies…”

…and you’re one of them!

Talk about a revisionist of history extraordinaire!

I feel sorry for guys like you that live in such an unhappy little nostalgic universe. It’s been awhile since I’ve read a diatribe with more intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, and logical fallacies (which, by the way, added a nice little dollop of irony atop the whole experience).

Keep patting yourself on the back. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

Unfortunately men eventually abdicated their God given responsibility and allowed their emotional partner an equal footing in deciding the country’s fate

God said this? When? Is it written down somewhere? Oh right! the Bible! That funky book of “logical” ballyhoo, that everyone quotes just before they go in and smite some “godless” country for no reason.
Your logic, and your kungfu, is weak!

Also, why is it that every conservative right wing nut job looks at anyone who isn’t a conservative right wing nut job as “the enemy”?

Sir, you don’t seem to realize this, but fear is an emotion as well. Your article fails to address with any real logical process any of the claims you are attempting to make. Instead you look at history with a cursory glance, picking examples randomly from history and failing to really examine them. The difference between the Right and Left is not that the Right is unemotional and the Left is illogical. The difference is that the Right plays the public using fear, and the Left plays the public using a combination of guilt and hope.

ed wrote: OneVike was fairly specific. He does not suggest women shouldn’t vote or that some men aren’t emotionally influenced…

Yet he clearly states that it was unfortunate that the 19th amendment, which clearly gave women the right to vote, was established. He’s double-dipping, claiming that he doesn’t want to take away women’s right to vote, but also claiming that they shouldn’t have the right to vote. In my opinion, he’s merely trying to placate those who would be offended by his inflammatory assertion.

Labour laws are passed so there will be no sweatshops. “Restrictive behaviour laws” are passed in order to prosecute those who would violate the rights of others. Did you know sodomy, aka any type of sexual activity other than missionary-position intercourse, is illegal in Virginia? That law exists so rapists & molesters can be prosecuted. Are you saying that none of these would exist if women couldn’t vote, and hence they SHOULDN’T exist because women SHOULDN’T be allowed to vote? Women vote because they live in this country too and have a say in what goes on.

You say you’re not advocating women as ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’. I’m calling you a liar. If you’re going to write trash like this, at least be straight up.

The stupid and fear in this article is only outdone by the stupid and fear in the comments.

This whole webpage is just terrifying. I understand, once again, why our civilization is incapable of moving forward. In this case, an author who both hates and fears women and is able to make up an entire non-sensical article about why women are so scary. Ironic since I’m sure women in the author’s life are subservient to him, and it’s obvious the women in the comments are subservient to their husbands.

All of you, every last one of you that have agreed with the author, have more in common with the more fanatical and radical aspects of Islam than you do Americans. Ironic given the state of affairs in countries like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Countries that are failures of civilization, yet who do not allow women the right to vote, or the right to do much of anything. So are their problems solely due to men in control, or do you have some way to lie to yourselves that they are an exception instead of the rule?

Every last one of you are cowards, and I can only guess how ashamed our past leaders would be to know that this is what dwells in America.

Quote:

You’re 100% right on this issue, although most of us are too afraid to say so! Without the women’s vote democrats would have lost every election since sufferage passed… with one exception and that was Barry Goldwater.

The 4 Ism’s, liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism will be the torpedos that will sink our great ship of state.

Response: You forgot capitalism.

Rodger Dodger said: “Women are not anylitical, they only want to know if something works and HOPE for the best, they have no interest in how it works.

I must ask, Rodger: Are you really a woman? If so, why do you refer to women as “they”? Either you are a man posing as a women on this forum in order to convince others that even WOMEN think women are irrational, or you are a women who fancies herself better than the rest of the women, thereby rendering you either a liar or a hypocrite.

To the author of this essay:

A better man than I once said: “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” I suggest you take that sentiment to heart rather quickly, as you have just revealed yourself to be a complete and utter idiot.

Tina said: “I agree about the 19th Amendment.”
and
“That said, I believe women should be allowed to run for office.”
and
“Sounds hypocritical, but it’s no worse than Albore(Al Gore) jetting around the world preaching to us about our carbon footprint.”

Actually, it IS worse. Al Gore’s jet rides are used to increase awareness of the environmental issues we currently face. So overall, he does more good than harm. You, however, have a foot on both side of the fence. You wish women were never given the right to vote, but think they should be able to lead the country? I’m assuming you are saying that only SOME women are capable of the logic necessary to vote. But if SOME women are capable, doesn’t it stand to wit that, by your logic, all women COULD be capable?

I’ve spread your essay around to people who don’t read Digg.

Enjoy your newfound status, dear sir.

Hehehehehehehe.

If you are correct, you are only alive because someone made an emotional decision instead of a rational one.

For the religious, it is because one god or another decided to allow you to live. For the evolutionary-minded, it is because you weren’t killed by your parents, sensing weakness and wishing to pass long stronger genetic material than what you ended up with.

You should thank your lucky stars there’s an emotional decision or two in the mix.

Why not suggest a better course of action, rather than blame something you have no control over?

And please, learn proper grammar and spelling.

Amazing! What a bunch of losers! Zero schooling in logic to write an article and responses about, of all things, “logic”.

How many of you “real men” were clammoring to support your “real man”, George W? Was he real man enough? Talk tough enough? Dumb enough? Shoots from the hip fast enough?

Gee! That’s not emotional at all! It’s all real man “logic”, eh?

Where are the WMD’s? Where is Osama? How the heck did W managed to lose an entire city? How the heck did W managed to spend $1T on a war, and then lose $$$T on the economy?

Who needs terrorists when you have “logical” men like these running the country?

Oh, and if you honestly think Ann Coulter/Bill O’Reily/Rush Limburger are all “logical” and don’t “emotionally” support their party, …

Well … I guess you must be one of those “logical” men …

Oh … that was sarcasm, in case you missed it … because you are soooo “logical”.

I agree mostly with Onevike’s opinions. However I think that what he pointed out is part of a larger problem. America is being doomed by two foes. First is our legal system. Second is our culture which may or may not be an indirect product of women’s suffrage.

If you travel outside of the country (I noticed this on my recent trip to Montreal) you will find that the streets are relatively void of signs and coffee cups don’t carry warning labels of the contents temperature etc.

This is because in America every public or private group lives in constant fear of being sued by some moron who claims that he never even imagined that the hot cup of joe he ordered is actually hot (Actually I believe it was a women in that specific example who sued for that.)

This is because of two fatal flaws. First, somewhere along the line it was decided that people are not completely responsible for their own actions. Secondly, our legal system allows people to sue at little to no risk to themselves.

The first of these flaws ties in very closely with the next issue.

Right now people in America believe that they have the right to make a difference.

While this may sound very nice, what it translates to in reality is “People in America believe they have the right to tell other people how to live.”

Since people are apparently no longer responsible for their own actions and are incapable of doing anything without signs explicitly warning or guiding them, that means that someone needs to tell them what to do.

This opens up a great niche for all these morons who want to change the world and make it a better place and push their views on others.

What America really needs is a total shift in attitude. People need to once again to rely on themselves for guidance. They may ask for advice and help from others IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. People need to again start living for themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions.

In my opinion, the best (and totally impossible) solution would be to abolish every single law governing how individuals live and abide to one strict rule.

That rule is “A man/woman is free to do whatever they please as long as it does not cause the harm of another individual.” a Governments job in this reality besides providing public upkeep and improvements would be to provide a fairly standard system of punishments for those who break the non-agression rule.

I hope this argument is coherent to you all, I tried to get my point across in as few words as possible.

TheMiz,
Why the lies? Woodrow Wilson was totally behind the 19th amendment.

Wow! I think you hit a nerve. I am surprised by many of the comments. It appears that many just peruse the article and comment about what they think. This article is not proposing the repeal of the 19th amendment, it is merely pointing out cause and effect. There is a more profound truth just a bit deeper though. Freedom itself is self consuming. The 19th amendment was just a building block on the road to destruction. As freedom reigns, prosperity is the result. The final result of prosperity is the destruction of consequences. The natural progression from freedom to tyranny is unstoppable and is as natural as any other form of evolution. We are all just part of an inscrutable process. We can do nothing more than to make ourselves and a few others around us as comfortable as possible while we yet live. The government for it’s part mostly hinders good and furthers evil but is so slow at both processes that the effect is minimal. We decide as a group what’s to be done and the result is so predictable it should be considered a science, predetermination if you will or maybe Psycho history (Google Psycho history and Asimov)

epilog: If we do succeed with all these protective laws and stop people from dieing early what are we to do with our 10 billions of people on this little planet?

Wait, this isn’t The Onion! I’ve been duped!

b1I130
First of all, you hint that women voters have lead us more towards socialism, yet you have not provided any empirical evidence leading to the establishment that socialism is indeed better than capitalism.

I am sure you meant that there is no empirical evidence that Socialism is not worse then Capitalism. I can only infer that from your misunderstanding of my stance against Socialism.

All I have to do is look the 70 years the Soviet Union practiced it. By the time the USSR was ready to collapse their centralized government could not even produce toilet paper. That may have made “One Square Sharyl Crowe” happy but the people of that country did not like using their fingers.

Another example is how many European countries are in the process of trying to move away from socialized national health care by making easier for people to get their health care provided by the private sector.

This ends my attempt to answer any rebuttals or attacks upon me and my opinion.

It is time for you all to go back to the democratundserground and again worship Obama.

This pale-male hetero-patriarchy bullshit is what’s destroying this country, and it all revolves around the GOP and their unquestioning band of cronies (News Corp, etc.).

It’s THIS mindset (that of the article) that is eroding the minds of our people, our children and our country. That all women are emotional and men are supposed to take charge in all matters.

We all buy into this obtuse, pop-culture mindset that women are emotional and men are logical. Some women, who are raised on the belief that women are to be submissive, emotional and all together illogical, actually buy into it. They are force fed it for their entire lives, from cartoons to religion to magazines and television, and eventually some of them actually buy in to it.

We are raised to believe this process, the separation of labors according to genders, is natural and universal, but its not. Its a facade, created by the pale-male hierarchy to make us all into docile bodies so they can shape us to fit us into any role that they please.

I understand why you didn’t put your real name on your article; because you’re terrified. You’re terrified, because you know that its all bullshit. And you know that certain people, like me and many others, will not buy into and will not stand for it.

You’re a coward, a blind fool, a terrible writer and an embarrassment to mankind. Shame on you.

Dear Writer,

I’m not going to assume your education level, religion, even your gender – I’m just going to speak to you as a person. Your claim that men are ruled by logic and women are ruled by emotion is weak, misguided and completely ridiculous, both scientifically and philosophically.
You do realize that every motivation, regardless of any physical characteristic, including gender, comes from a personal, subjective standpoint … which is, guess what, emotional. It is impossible for anybody to be completely logical, because logic implies a complete lack of meaning, response or personal interest.
And before you claim that those are “women’s words,” those ideas are philosophical findings that were introduced by men far before women had any rights apart from their fathers or husbands. These philosophical concepts were reinforced by scientific research into the brain that was introduced, again by men, in the mid 19th century.
In addition, the idea of the word “emotion” (and all that’s attributed to it) is merely an umbrella term for any physiological response that the brain provides in order to assist in a reaction to outside stimuli. That’s the very definition of logical thought as well: see, process, respond.
So in retrospect, are emotions logical or are logistics emotional?
Maybe you should do a little more research before ranting about something you don’t understand.

Signed,
Anonymous
p.s. I suppose you feel like slavery should still exist, too.

I have a great job and the US seems fine to me. Sure we’re a bit bumpy as the market corrects itself but anyone with half a brain and fundamental grasp of free market principles can understand it.

This sounds like a lot of whining around a problem that doesn’t exist. My quality of life is fine, I have plenty of wealth, a graduate degree, a great job, and I’m in my late 20’s and I have no serious complaints.

What’s the problem here again? What exactly can’t I do? What the hell are you whining about exactly? You never really pointed out any specific problem aside from your political discomfort.

This is likely one of the worst, offensive things I, as a well-educated woman, have ever read.
First of all, let’s get down to the nitty gritty of an argument like this.
The ratio, as of two years ago, of men to women in the entire world is 1.01 males/1.00 female.
While everyone is aware of the racism and religious intolerance in America, let alone in the world, the ratios of blacks:hispanics:muslims:caucasians is not even near half the population. Take a look around us, and in an average urban area there are far more white people than any other. We place such strong emphasis on racial equality, and rightfully so. Why discriminate against someone because of the colour of their skin that is impossible for them to change?

And yet the battle for gender equality is so extremely overlooked. Day in and day out, as a frequent to the internet, I am bombarded with messages by ignorant males who think it’s a joke to expect women to be their submissive, barefoot, in the kitchen partner. That’s just embarassing for them, but the point is that by discriminating against someone because their sexual organs are different is equally as unfair as discriminating against the colour of one’s skin. To completely cut off HALF of your population because of their sexual organs is horrifying. And that, my friends, is why it was changed. Somebody somewhere realized that the opinion that women were lesser human being is completely ridiculous and unjustified. I know plenty smarter, more self-aware, educated women than I do men.

Your opinion is completely old-fashioned and to think that you expected people to agree with you is pathetic. To attribute a single characteristic to half of a population, and call it the downfall of your already corrupted country is dispicable.

All black people are violent. All white people are not. Being violent is bad.
All women are emotional. All men are not. Being emotional is bad.

Both statements are completely false, but if you’re going to make one claim you better be prepared to make them all.
This argument is wrong on so many levels I can’t even begin to get in-depth. These useless opinions, and completely false claims are not worth my time.

Funny April Fools article!

“And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.”

This made me laugh.

Hysterically.

I have these words for you, they make your entire article irrelevant (yes, I read it). Correlation does not always equal causation.

“So once upon a time a man had to watch over his little boy. Some of the man’s friends came over and during a break, the man spotted his little boy about to stick a fork in the electrical socket. The man then bumped his friends and said ‘hey, watch this!’”

And the boy dies.

And this, people, is how the 19th Amendment come into being. Geez.

Two words — spare me.

yeah..to all who are clearly ill-informed, there is absolutely no scientific proof that men use purely Justice based moral reasoning and that women use purely Care based moral reasoning. In fact, studies have shown that the way men and women think is so similar that it is impossible to tell the difference between m/f in the results.

and to all you women who dumb yourselves down…
seriously? get a clue! is this subject really still cause for debate? It’s like it’s 1920 all over again. We’re smarter than that now! Scientists have done research and stuff! I promise you! We’ve even gone to the moon! And determined that people of colored skin are actually humans too!

wow…wtf is wrong with these people?

OH NOEZ MY VAJAYJAY MADE ME DUMM!

I don’t think its women you’re so afraid of, I think its people who think in general. Or you’re just afraid of women due to a very embarrassing sexual experience.

They have pills for that now, by the way.

You contradict yourself on several occasions in this dim-witted essay. You have NO stable sense of logic yourself. I believe that you should say what you what you’d like to say, but get your facts right and don’t wander all over the place with insufficient reason (or what you may call logic). It seems to me that this article may just be a great outlet for YOUR EMOTIONAL response to the most recent election. If you need a shoulder to cry on, ask your wife.

And for you women that seem to agrees with this unorganized ranting; you say you support the opinions of your husband and vote similarly … if this is the case … then why would this article have been written. I suggest you follow the advice i gave to the author.

DAMN people! think for yourself!

LOL This essay is pure irony. It is nothing but an emotional tirade with no facts to back any of it up.

Well let’s just take a look at some of the folks that make up the collective ‘Ism-ist’ factions of the left that are in control now: Barney Frank, Harry Reed, Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, ad nauseam. Stellar examples of the glittering new-castratti, and effeminate metro-sexuals. Nasal whiners all, and appropriately enough, Nancy boys and girly-men, with Ms. Pelosi and company the cheerleading biological emoticons.

We’re talking a social policy of warm and fuzzy nanny State suckling, where you can’t even fall down and hurt yourself. Stupidity not only doesn’t deter itself, it’s lauded. And how about a foreign policy of swooning, craven cowardice – can’t we all just be ‘nice’? Chaos at home, and encouragement of terrorists by abject weakness abroad.

I’ve got no patience for femi-nazis that shriek demands to be treated like men, and howl when they are. All ten members of the NAGs need to just get over that they’re too homely too get dates. Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate women. I’m all for the women’s movement, especially when I’m standing behind it. But I don’t want one in a foxhole with me, or at the reins of national power.

The dumbass’ right to troll: keep the torch burning bright, OneVike

Your essay is an emotional one. You wish for importance, simply by accident of birth. Then you construct an argument to support your wish. It is all hopeful, emotional, and childish.

Your mother loves you, however society wants more from you than simply being “a male” before you get the special recognition you seem to think that you deserve.

I have to suspect that you have no major accomplishments in life.

“Chris
This law is completely logical. It is designed to save lives.

No it’s not. It was designed for the helmet industry who donated heavily to the Democrat party and politicians who passed it. It guaranteed an industry will make enough money to keep feeding the state DNCs coffers.”

Maybe that’s what it was originally created for, but that doesn’t change the fact that, in practice, the law saves lives, and it doesn’t change the fact that it is an inherently logical thing to wear a helmet while riding a skateboard.

“I will hold the evidences in the Bible up to scrutiny any day. Can you do the same for the stuff you read? You really ought to read the Bible some time, it will enlighten you, really. And it will not burn in your hands.”

I do read the Bible. But again, you miss the point. I am not disparaging Christianity. I am simply pointing out the irony in your devotion to logic while criticizing others for not believing in talking snakes and people turning into salt. Again, there’s nothing wrong with believing in that, but it’s based on emotion, not logic. See why emotion isn’t such a bad thing?

“Chris
Also, the concern about global warming is not about polar bears.

I did not say global warming was about the polar bears. I said the way they used the picture of the Polar Bear on the Ice Berg was to tug at heartstrings of emotional people who think the bear is stranded because he cannot get back to the main continental ice shelf.

Then people will believe the lie about Global Warming. You really need to read Anthony Watt’s science blog and you will learn the truth about the Great Global Warming Scam. It is all based on emotion to get your money!

As I said bears can swim over 100 miles without tiring, but that fact does not work into their propaganda.”

OK…swim to where, exactly?

“Wrong, it was the biggest war because more countries then ever before fought in it. Thus the two capital W’s as in “World War”. Also I did not say it was big because of the women. Wow, you really need to learn some reading comprehension.”

You implied that the biggest war of all time came about because of women’s suffrage. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but if not, then it is your writing skills that are clearly in need of some work, not my reading comprehension. Seriously, good grammar costs nothing.

“Ever her of “Helen of Troy”? or “Cleopatra”? how about “Queen Elizabeth of England” and “Queen Isabella” of Spain? You need to study history a bit more then you have.”

Yeah, there were a few wars that started because of women. But most were still caused by men, because men have historically been the ones with the most power, and that is still true today.

“I am very comfortable with strong intelligent capable women. Have you ever heard of Ann Coulter,”

Ah, yes, of course you are comfortable with “strong women” when they share your disrespect of women.

“or Margette Thatcher? I just do not buy into the lie that women can do everything a man can do. Just as I do not believe men can do everything women can do. What is it that scares today women away from being a beautiful feminine creature God created them to be?

Why must they demand that men accept them as if you were a man. I thank God that he made women to need men and to nurture our children, just as I am glad God made men to need a women to cleave to, love, and protect.”

Oy–you really have no idea how dangerous this men=active/women=passive logic is. This is what causes rape.

“You really are missing out if you think America should be an emotional basket case like the socialist world of Europe is.”

When did I say anything even close to this?

Also, you keep defending yourself by saying you don’t want to take the right to vote away from women, you only wish that they had never gotten the right in the first place. Those two sentiments are not all that different, because they both amount to you thinking women shouldn’t have rights.

Tina wrote:

“I’m one of the women you target with this absurd statement. In your mind, I suppose, any woman who fails to tow the feminist line must be severely oppressed and suffering.”

LOL! “Tow the feminist line?” I’m talking about the women who don’t believe they should have the right to vote. You don’t have to be a feminist to find that idea repulsive. You just have to have the most basic respect for women as full citizens with equal rights. As far as being oppressed, well, if you wish that women couldn’t vote, then what you are wishing for is oppression by the very definition of the word.

“I’m a woman who finds programs like the welfare system a disgrace from which we may never recover . It is a system born of sympathy and based on need rather than the ideas of freedom, the inherent dignity of every human being, and real abilities and opportunity. This feel good idea has over the decades robbed individuals of their hopes and dreams and destroyed families and communities. It has ensured a permanent, dependent class and it offers only abject poverty. This program was put in place by men but it was encouraged, cajoled and pressed into being by emotion (the feminine response).”

Are you responding to me here? Because I never said anything about welfare.

“This is but one example of the type of emotional response OneVike deplores; I’ll give you that he is quite emotional about it.”

The response you just wrote was not a logical reply to my post. It was an emotional rant that had nothing to do with what I had written. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

When I write articles arguing for logic, reason, and intelligence, I try to eliminate any grammatical errors that may damage my credibility on the subject. But that’s just me. You go ahead and do it your way.

A diatribe on utter ignorance. Bravo.

Talk about overgeneralizations, and rampant stupidy.. You see a problem with the US Government, and you blame it on women voting.. Hmm.. I’m sure setting the slaves free was the second worst thing this country did, right?.. Amazingly, it was before women could vote.. How the F did that happen?

We the Affluent Anglo-Saxon People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union for Affluent Anglo-Saxons , establish Justice for Affluent Anglo-Saxons, insure domestic Tranquility by hedging in non-Affluent non-Anglo-Saxons, provide for the common defence of Affluent Anglo-Saxons,[1] promote the general Welfare of Affluent Anglo-Saxons, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Affluent Anglo-Saxon selves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for Ourselves that we may forever control the United States of America.

I post this amended Preamble, because it isn’t just that the Founding Fathers felt that women should be represented by their husbands, but that the husbands be represented by an Electorial College. In reality, even the husband’s vote is legally obscured by the smoke and mirrors of our representative (i.e., not democratic) government. The affluent men of that era were unwilling to allow the common man a vote that they couldn’t override in the event that they disagreed with the popular vote. In other words, they respect you about as much as you respect women. They distrust your ignorant positions as much as you distrust those of women. Those are the people you hold is such esteem, the very ones who entreat themselves to every liberty they want, while restricting everyone else’s that might challenge their self-serving actions.

And, you’re buying it. You always have, you always will.

What is really destroying the fabric of this nation, imho, is big business’ ability to overwhelmingly influence the politicians who are primarily just in it for the money. The same politicians who enact laws to further restrict the American Citizenry with so many laws that we are enslaved to those big business who attemt to restrict our choices and self-determination, so that we have little to no choice but to buy their products and live the lives as they have designed for us.

In the words of George Carlin, “It’s just a big club, and we’re not in it.”

WOW, maybe the dumbest thing I’ve read all week. OK, so I get that you’re not saying we should repeal the 19th amendment, but, might I kindly ask: what the goddamn hell is your point, then? Did you just write this so the internet at large can know exactly how little you think of half of our species and their ability to come to their own decisions?

I think we can all agree that women getting the vote changed America. But change is inevitable, and often it’s good. America can never be the way it was before WWII, but guess what, there are a lot of reasons for that, like our widespread availability of information, our shift to a service-based economy, our widespread mistrust of government (oh, and which party was responsible for that shift in public opinion…? Gosh, I’m blanking, was Nixon a Democrat? :P) not just the fact that women can vote.

Learn to live with the changes, maybe learn something from them. But don’t just sit around complaining and blaming women for it. And stop spewing your sexist bullsh*t for everyone to see, loser.

…I’m speechless. You people who even see reason in this are incomrehensible. WHAT THE F— IS WRONG WITH YOU?! HAVE YOU BEEN HIDING IN CAVES FOR THE PAST CENTURY?! It’s not women that are the problem. It’s you.

Editors note: Joel if you use the F-bomb again, you’re banned. Fair warning.

Wow, I thought the John Birch Society had gone underground.

This editorial sounds like it was written by a member of the Taliban. Oh well, there’s always a small number of crackpots that love to spew their blithering, mindless folderol.

What is funny though is that some people on this board associate this crap with the Republican party. That doesn’t bode too well for them.

Why don’t you get a life?

Wow, I am speechless. The opinion of this article and most of the individuals commenting is quite disappointing. I wont bother to try to change anybodies mind, all I can do is hope that evolution weeds out people as hateful and uncompassionate as most of you. Ah whatever I dont want to waste my time with you people, I have better things to do, like going to the bathroom.

Editors note: Please…do GO to the appropriate room first!

There should be an amendment to keep trash like you out of this country. I truly feel sorry for you because things are only going to get better and you are going to die a little inside every day. Sweet.

Look forward to the author’s post on the sorry end in store since Blacks got the vote, and even became Presidents…

Oh, those good old days when 80% of the world was colonized or in chains, women had no voice and there was 100% employment, because democracy only had to provide jobs to the enfranchised.

This is a sexist piece of c*ap that sounds like something the idiots from Fox News would write. I feel dumber for having read it!

I am an Electrical Engineer and neither right nor left, nor religious, nor a typical ignorant American … I can only say this about this article and the majority of the string posters … This is why I can not stand the majority of the retarded people in this country. You want to talk about removing votes for lacking logic. Take a huge look in the mirror people. NONE! None of you are logical! You probably still believe in zombie religions or such. Please, please try to grow your intelligence! Spitting out c*ap facts about history doesn’t prove anything and what ever your racist grandpa had to say doesn’t hold water in any argument. The cold hard fact is that men and women have been screwing up this planet since the very beginning and now we can’t exclude men because women, too, have the vote. Big Deal! The last time we had a true egalitarian society was during the hunting and gathering days… and guess who really provided for the family? Not the hunters.

I would suggest focusing on making your world a less hateful place and with less blaming and finger pointing. Talk about emotional out burst and illogical deduction … this article is a product of both.

Eleanor Roosevelt was an outspoken proponent of a law stopping people from lynching blacks- da*n emotion, good thing logic won and that law failed. On that note, as far as white America is concerned, women have been the strongest voices against slavery, so again, ridiculous emotion ruined a good thing.

At least learn how to spell Reagan before you start fe**ating his corpse.

Bad decisions can be made by either gender. Whether it is based upon thinking logically or emotionally.

It used to be believed that certain races were inferior due to the size of the head and certain topical features. It was a logic based argument, not emotional.

Good choices and decisions are chosen utilizing both logic AND emotion. Basic business courses teach that. You have to chose the best course that will bring the most utility to those involved.

I am guessing that OneVike has left this thread for good though. I would appreciate a discussion on this stance. This is not a sarcastic remark in the least.

Emotional and logical characteristics are not gender determined psychological traits. They are societal based traits given to gender roles. The “norms” are not biological, or in the nature versus nurture scheme, they are nurtured traits.

Good thing we have strong non-emotional types like Glen Beck around. Stooge

Dude, wouldn’t it be better if only those of I.Q. 120 or greater could vote? I mean, why let stupid men/women rule the country?

Do you think republicans would win that way too?

I don’t think so…

Yep, women are so much less logical. Why else would we have that old saying: “Women, always thinking with their clitorises.”

Al Gore must be an emotional girl since he invented global warming! You people are tools that should have your rights to vote revoked. It makes me sick to think that you blame women for the down fall of this country when really it boils down to ill educated losers like you. By the way spell check makes you look smarter!

hateful bigots

PLEASE write another opinion like this. The more you write, the less votes you will gain for ultra right-wing conservatives. Maybe someday you will realize thinking like this is illogical and dead-ended. You are a fool, simply put. A fool.

I think you’re missing the point. Why not just say that Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to vote? We should just require everyone to vote Republican candidates into office, because Republicans always think logically and do what’s best for the country.

In fact, we should just eliminate all opposition to the Republican party and make it a one party system. And since everybody’s going to be voting Republican, why not just eliminate that expense and do away with voting while we’re at it. It would be the logical thing to do, wouldn’t it?

Not only is this article offensive, but it is also very poorly written.

You are clearly undereducated and I will not take offense to this.

troll much!? Bleep bleep galore…

The downside of freedom of expression is that this kind of racist bigot c*appy article would stay on the internet and normal, logical people will be emotional after reading this. So, when more than half of the population do not subscribe to your viewpoint then you want to take away their voting rights!!! (I know you have not asked to roll back the 19th amendment, but your article confirms the contempt you have for the amendment).

And you wonder why people fly planes into your buildings?

Do the world a favor: Get cancer and die you piece of dog – – – -.

Editors note: Bob, this kind of talk does not advance conversation, it’s crude and we will not tolerate it on a family website.

“A couple of years ago I read a story that said there is over 100,000 federal, state, and local laws on the books that regulate or restrict some sort of normal human behavior.”

This vague, un-cited statement is all we need to not take your argument with a hint of credibility. I’m all for free speech, but you are spitting utter shit out of your mouth.

Backwards much? The irony of the whole GOP losing and now being hated by a large amount of americans situation is that they have the stereotype of being stereotypers, racists and more!…because of people like the poster of this thread/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/etc. Why would women want to vote for a party that consists of people who carry beliefs such as these?

Please explain to me how exactly the largely conservative stances against gay-marriage and pro-choice legislation are in anyway based on reason and not religious doctrine.

How exactly is policy making based on faith any different than the policy making based on emotion you claim women are so woefully responsible for?

Faith falls no more in line with reason than emotion does, and decisions based on doctrines written in thousands year old documents rather than on actual interactions with real people seem quite a bit more dangerous to me.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don’t believe homosexuals marriage is right either.

The more you clowns talk, the dumber you sound. Keep it up!

This has been one of my theories for years that allowing women to vote has mess up govenment. If fact, I would take it all the way back to only allowing land owners the right to vote.

the second theory has to do with allowing women to drive… it sure has mess up the highways.

You know what was awesome? All the facts you pointed to to show how much better off we are if we ignore our feelings. God, that was a stellar argument you made, steeped in all kinds of sweet, vague references to laws you don’t bother to name, and statistics you don’t have to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

I suppose the problems we face now after the last 8 years of an administration that cares nothing about how people feel, those are all Obama’s fault since he’s been president for a grand total of 2 months? I suppose all the unparalleled prosperity we saw under Bill Clinton, we can ignore all of that, because it doesn’t fit your pitiful excuse for an argument?

Let me tell you something about your hero Ronald Reagan who knew how to call evil evil: in 1986, congress passed a bill sanctioning trade with Apartheid South Africa in order to finally end the evil regime. They had to pass it over Reagan’s veto. If we never see another Reagan, I’ll die a happy man.

The points you tried to make in this article are a little far-fetched. If you’re going to try to make a point, be more specific with your supporting evidence and provide more of it. The evidence you provided doesn’t go very well with your argument.

Women can be emotional at times, but they can also be more rational and objective than men a lot of the time. To say emotion has torn this country down is pretty dumb. I’d also like to point out that this article sounds like it was written in a very emotional state.

Also, you demonstrate to much bias in partisanship. You are obviously very anti-Democratic and so any points you have on the Democratic party are bias and meaningless.

just plain IGNANT

Interesting idea. However, for this paper to actually mean something you need to cite sources. I’m not saying newspaper articles, media is inherently a bad source, but you need to actually go to the history books and see if what you are saying is actually true. You are making a supreme value assumption throughout this entire paper, yet you give no actual research findings proving your thesis. You’re using the logic fallacy of “begging the question” making us the readers have to prove you wrong instead of you thoroughly backing up your argument.

So please, cite some sources so your assumptions may actually be looked at as credible.

Well if you really feel so then I feel pity for you. Women makes society and they are the pillars of any countries progress.
Look at what they have achived in so less time.
http://www.ekhichdi.com/gallery/some-unseen-pics-of-megan-fox

Tina

Men. Confusing their penis for their brain for thousands of years.

For someone who touts logic and reason over emotional responses, this article sounds a lot like tears pouring from the eyes of a sore loser.

I’m not even going to debate the many logical fallacies present in your “logical” arguments. For instance, implying that women voters caused WWII is ridiculous. What was the logical progression of thought there? Women won the right to vote, then WWII, so voting women must have caused WWII. It seems more likely to me that the improving military technology was the main contributor to the death toll, but then I suppose I don’t have your logical republican brain.

Let me guess… If he could run again, you would have voted for four more years of Bush. Logic wins again!

Love Canada

P.S. Ok, so I debated a little.

Wow. I cannot believe there are still idiots in this country that sincerely believe this.

I am a woman, yes. I am a strong woman, with enough logic and sense to make decisions for myself. Just because you are some sort of sexist, right-wing radical does not mean that I should be stripped of, or should never have attained, the right to have a say in my government. I am a citizen of the United States with just as much intelligence as you or any other man. You want examples of strong, intelligent women? Margaret Thatcher? Hillary Clinton? Ring a bell? Thought so. I thought that by now women would have proved ourselves capable of everything men are capable of at this point, and to intelligent thinkers who allow themselves to change with the times we have. However, it seems as though there will always be incorrigible idiots basking in their “superior” manhood. I hope for your sake you open your mind and see the truth. Until then, please do not bother the world with your sexist, close-minded ramblings.

You attempt to make the point that women’s suffrage changed who was elected in the US. However, you don’t remark on what these supposed “womanly/emotional” politicians (elected by women) did that you disagreed with, and how the supposed “emotionality” is linked to bad decisions or severe reprecussions for the country. Given that we’ve had both Democratic and Republican presidents since women’s suffrage, I’m not sure it’s possible to blame problems on one group, or attribute their decisions and resulting reprecussions to simple “emotionality” or “logic.” My guess is that you’re just irked that Obama was elected, and, ironically, you’re trying to find a reason to attribute your own negative emotional response to the new president.

Oh my- The author is more than illogical, but the self-righteous tone and arrogance proves the failure to attribute facts & reality to theories & persuasion. I FEEL sorry for the family who has to listen to this non-sense daily. I suspect mental health is an issue in author’s family.

My empathy has fed me well in my career. True joy doesn’t rise in angry, selfish, judgmental souls. Good thing I’m a woman who can smile today knowing that my vote counts. FEELING good and proud– ready to send my money to the people who will put government on track and keep lunatics out of office.

Well, balls for posting this. Unfortunately, its mostly poorly reasoned nonsense.

The crux of your argument wasn’t even related to the subject. It has nothing to do with women and voting and more to do with allowing emotion to rule logic. The problem with painting this as a problem with the left, you leave yourself wide open to the obvious fact that the far right is ruled almost entirely by emotion, dogma, and doctrine…religion.

If you want to govern solely based on logic and reason…I’m all for it. Just be sure that you’re keeping an eye on your own party’s tendency to make decisions based on fairy tales.

I’ll tell you what has torn this country down and that is stupid people making stupid decisions. The divide is not he/she it’s smart/stupid.

People uninvolve themselves from anything past their front door and spend no time in getting to understand a political issue to know what side they should be on or to take the time to get to know a candidate and their position. People decide on “gut” or “feelings” because that’s all they’ve bothered to have.

This article suggests that men are smart and women are stupid. I would gladly state that there are plenty of each in both genders. I think allowing a young person to vote when they can barely take care of themselves is dangerous. People will vote for whomever they think will help them and their situation. The problem is not a struggling poor person voting for a candidate that will help them get a job, its the lazy person that votes for the candidate to get themselves more entitlements.

I think only proven productive people should be allowed to engage in politics, whether as a candidate or a voter.

This is probably one of the worst articles I have ever read. Not because I disagree with your poorly supported position but it’s general level of quality.

There are these magic things called spell check and ‘reading-what-you-just-wrote-to-see-if-its-spelled-right’ There are so many typo’s and grammatical errors in your essay that I’m surprised you didn’t catch them all. They’re very obvious and look unproffessional.

Now on to your writing. The way you write reminds me of a high school sophomore writing threatening letters. You try to sound smart and intimidating but you come off as whiny and idiotic.

You are also an idiot. You could have swayed many more people to your idea without so many ’emotional’ out bursts in your paper. Maybe you should have stuck to your manly logic and left the emotion to the women.

—-

However even though you are an idiot I do agree that giving women the vote changed our society and you do bring up some valid points. But you, like most other people with controversial view points, see only a small part of the picture.

You see these negative things that you ‘feel’ (you cannot prove it) have been done by women in society, but you ignore the stepping stones that made for federal relief and racial and cultural equality and international tolerance.

You also assume that the world would be and was better if it was male dominated. The male and female are just one part of the same whole, each acting out seperate parenting roles. If the government is the parent and protector of the united states don’t women deserve some role in it?

I think you’re so biased in your ignorant self riteous predisposition that you ignore that many of things could have happened anyways. That women add a balance to their male counterparts in voting with different values and that there are an equal amount of men as women. Don’t politicians have to please both men and women to retain their votes?

Don’t they both have ‘equal’ voting power so there is an equal amount of laws passed?

Also you assume that what men vote for typically are for the best and never doubt it. I bet you that there are plenty of things that men are likely to vote for that are far more damaging to society than ‘helmet’ laws. I honestly can’t believe you are complaining about helmet laws and the inability of minors to do certain job. News flash, that effects society about as much as you or me typing these posts.

This is the most poorly written thing I’ve seen in months, and your opinions make you a terrible person. If you agree with this, you are also a terrible person.

You mention that Reagan is logical because he believes in evil. Since when is belief in evil remotely logical? The Bible is an emotional case-study and this is the most ignorant, contradictory, and deluded diatribe I have ever read. Your mother ripped her cervix wide open for you and no amount of logic will give you an appreciation for that.

OneVike, yer famous! It’s not much fun, is it? And it’s not really fair either, on top of the actual article, your taking the hit for that first flush of subterranean comradery.

It’s like, you know there out there … afraid to say this, that or the other out loud. And then OneVike comes along and emboldens them to speak things in public they really know better than the speak to any but fellow true believers.

And have now brought down upon their heads this torrent of not-very-kindly disagreement. You see, you are a fringe. We all think that a democracy is not a democracy unless everybody gets to play, and we are, very broadly speaking, content with the way society is progressing. It has been 60 years since WWII. We’re going to see how much longer we can extend the run.

To those of you who simply insult this article as some kind of attack… You are the kind of people he is referring to that work based on emotion instead of logic, therefore your comments mean essentially nothing.

There are plenty of us out here who see right through the wording of the article to understand the underlying point. What I see is an overwhelming disconnect between the “right” and the “left” based on much of this information. Bottom line is, the “right” tends to go with logic while the “left” tends to go with emotion. You can see it plain as day everywhere, I really don’t know how anyone can deny that and simply insult this article or call it ignorant.

If you would like to say this article is ignorant, please provide evidence that backs up your claim that this approach is ignorant. Otherwise, the ones who are ignorant are the ones who think this article is nonsense, because the fact here are that life is not fair, we’re designed how we are and that cannot be changed, and we can trace the evolution of all these situations right back to their underlying causes.

Funny… it always gets really quiet when you ask democrats and liberals for facts, yet Republicans tend to reference alot of literature and history. I prefer to consider myself in the middle to look at both sides, but it’s pretty clear that the left does prefer to insult than to approach things intelligently. Perfect example is the twisting of the facts for comedy’s sake on The Daily Show. Now people think Jon Stewart is some kind of political genius, when meanwhile, all his jokes are in hindsight. How does that saying go? Hindsight is 20/20? Gee, that’s funny because then that means Jon Stewart isn’t special, he’s just using hindsight and quotes out of context to sound like he was so much smarter.

I just wonder if all the CHANGE and HOPE enchantment is wearing off at all, because there are plenty of us out here who see that actions speak louder than words.

Right now Obama’s actions are calling him a sneaky liar.

Your argument isn’t based on reason or logic but emotion. That doesn’t seem to matter to you, though.

“You’re 100% right on this issue, although most of us are too afraid to say so! Without the women’s vote democrats would have lost every election since sufferage passed… with one exception and that was Barry Goldwater.

The 4 Ism’s, liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism will be the torpedos that will sink our great ship of state.”

Capitalism ends in an ism.. Retard

You’re suuuuch and idiootttt I can’t even begin!

I guess they never had gay men back when men were making all those logical decisions that they apparently no longer can make! or maybe they never have lesbian women back when women were oh so devotedly helping men to do everything they couldnt understand!

This article is base and rank. Nice try.

God, I bet you like to only hear yourself talk at parties…

So let me get this straight, for 80+ years women only voted for pansies, then by some strange reason the Super Hero Reagan managed to get elected. Is this the same ‘MAN’ who wore makeup for his day job and hung around monkeys all the time?

His very presidency is why women shouldn’t vote! They only elected him because of emotions..the fact that he was an actor! Look at Arnold in California..who 6 years ago was the republican savior, but is now what he always was…an actor! Just like Reagan.

Reagan created the very mentality that created the mess we’re in now…GREED, LIES, NO LOGIC! His policies created a downward spiral of budget spending THAT WE WILL NEVER OVERCOME!!!!!NEVER And its all the women’s and Reagans Fault!!!!

You prove yourself to be a fool with every paragraph. Do the world a favor and forget how to type.

Whine whine whine.

If you can’t get the people to support your goals, then you lose. It’s called democracy. You can blame it on women, blacks, gays, muslims, castrated men, or whatever, but it comes down to this: you fail to get support, then you’re done.

If you’re smart, and if your ideas hold water, then you should be able to build popular support over time. If you can’t, it’s because you’re not smart enough to articulate your points, or your points are lousy to begin with. Stop blaming other people.

In reality, our political spectrum is an ongoing negotiation because there are valid points and smart people on both sides. Anyone who doesn’t realize this yet must lack some basic observational skills.

So much has changed in the past 100 years (population, communication, technology) that it is absurd to claim our current situation is caused by any one thing. Also, our current situation is better now by just about every factual measure than at any point in human history. So even your foundational assumptions are wrong. You’re reacting emotionally. Get over it.

@ Jimmy: “I completely agree with your point re: WWII. Women clearly influenced the German electorate into voting Hitler into power (he was an art student and a vegetarian, after all), and they did nothing to prevent his attempt to conquer Europe, and later the world, through a brutal military campaign. His “final solution” was also most likely Eva Braun’s idea, and he just ran with it. It was clearly an illogical, feminine response to try to stop him.”

Read a book.
First, Hitler was NOT an art student; he simply was not good enough to get in, but it was the music school he FAILED to get into that broke his spirit & THUS influenced him, out of embarrassment, to join the army & fight in WWI.

Secondly, he was NOT a vegetarian. He refrained from eating MOST meat because of his “figure”, but he loved Bavarian sausages & ate them daily. He also ate turtle soup as a late night snack & LOVED caviar.

As for onevike… I actually L.O.Led. Nice take on Jonathan Swift’s 1729 satire essay “A Modest Proposal”… Wait, was that direct nod at famous Georgian literature too emotional (see: intellectual) & weak (see: non-bigoted, non-violent) for you? Maybe you too, sir, should worry less about women voting & more about your own fiercely low cognitive levels (which deals with BOTH intellect & emotion; of which we cannot have one without the other. As mentioned above, READ A BOOK. Preferably David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature”).

I sincerely hope you are/were joking.

lol

You’re completely insane and unstable. Most people in your party won’t even touch you with a 10 foot pole and it isn’t because they’re afraid of the truth, it’s because they’re afraid you’re contagious. I mean…really…WWII? Wow. Just wow. I think someone’s off their anxiety meds.

Great troll.

I believe everyone can agree to the fact the stupid decisions are made by stupid people.

Stupidity is not limited to exterior facets of human beings. No matter your race, culture, or gender, you can be stupid. Religion and political standing do not protect you.

Ignorance… it is truly the greatest equalizer.

I guess the same can be said for Blacks. I wonder why women and other minorities tend to vote democratic… Just reading this article it is so hard to figure out why they don’t really like you guys? I mean by golly, why doesn’t everyone want to only support rich white men? This country would be in perfect shape! Look what it did for us under Bush! Everything shaped up nicely under him.

So you’re basically saying that men can’t handle themselves around women…. If men are so uncontrollably affected by the expectations of women then I say let’s get these weaklings out of office and maybe it’s time to amend the constitution so men can’t vote, since their so unstable by the affect of women.

Huh, that’s funny. Women’s rule with their emotions, and men rule with their dicks. C’mon people, can we just shut up altogether? It’s just a huge stupidity orgy at this point. The author doesn’t deserve this kind of attention. He’s a 12 year old boy with probably the world’s smallest penis.

Note to Author:
1. Learn the difference between then and than.
2. Don’t presume you speak for other conservatives. You’re an embarrassment.

Positively Swiftian! I guarantee that 95% of those reading your post won’t get its satirical nature, including 100% of the great Philisitinic block known as Cons.

Getting it, one knows, would require knowledge of literature and a sense of the paradoxical, two feats beyond the stretch of barnacled Bush-worshippers.

I’m a woman with conservative voting tendencies and I am absolutly appalled by this.

I can “make it in a man’s world” as someone suggested earlier, but I voted for Barack Obama because his international policy was better in my opinion.

Please don’t say women like Sarah Palin has what it takes survive in a man’s world- she doesn’t even know the name of a single newspaper or what the Bush Doctrine even is (see Katie Couric interviews).

If voting in a man’s world means voting while being completely ignorant and uniformed, then I say we need to end men’s suffrage.

Ummm. Sue…
Not all women are like that. Stop sterotyping. Some us have gotten things done, eventhough we were told not to. Stop this bull.

Interesting argument, I disagree, your awful grammar ruined it

Wow, another classic example of how the GOP has become the party of angry White Southern men. Not only does is this thesis completely devoid of common sense, decency, but it goes to great lengths to show blatant sexism.

I don’t know what you tell your daughters, but if one of your son’s ever comes calling, I’ll be sure to turn him away with shotgun in hand.

I sincerely hope the women in your family have properly put you in your place, you mindless drone.

Right on! Let’s turn this country around by removing women’s suffrage because we don’t need any balance whatsoever between republican and democrat in our country.

Then we’ll be on our way to really improving our nation by taking the right to vote back from those colored folk. Their voting tendency toward equality makes it hard to get anything done because everyone has a say and we spend too much time talking and not doing.

/mockingsarcasm

Not exactly a big hit with the ladies, are ya, buddy?

The funniest part is reading the comments by all the socialists, crying a river about someone’s opinion.

This is America; people can voice their opinion without fearing for their life… Oh wait, you have been threatened by the socialists who are taking over the country, nevermind.

Long story short, our society is too sensitive and emotional; see comments above as evidence.

Only thing I might disagree with: I don’t think Karl Marx was nearly as much of a stateist as we have today. No regime has ever stolen money at the level the US Government steals it from Americans today (According to Mike Church, whom I am willing to believe).

However, The 16th amendment was allowed to take effect without ratification before the 19th, so really most people are complete idiots without any gender bias necessarily. What is the difference between sloth and greed? personal responsibility

What politicians have to do is simply recognize that the “women’s vote” is not the radical feminist vote. It is the male politicians and was the male media that presumed all women were so emotional and were all victim feminists.

The National Organization of Women (NOW) represents victim feminists…20% of women. But 100% of Democrat politicians pander to them and 80% of Republican politiicans do the same.

Sarah Palin pandered to them. She accepted an endorsement from the LA Chapter of NOW on October 5th in front of a screaming crowd of idiot Republicans many of whom were men.

Another thing is that religious men tend to be hen-pecked husbands. The Womens KKK (WKKK) told men what to do after the Civil War and the movie “Gone With the Wind” depicts how manginas like Ashley Wilkes did the bidding of the emotional women.

Religious women themselves are as bad as the leftist feminists. Look at the way they want to make sure men are arrested for wanting some sexual fun.

Don’t blame the left here. Remember that there is a majority of women out there who would vote for you if you don’t pander to religious anti-sex crazy women or left wing feminist women.

Both the right and the left now pander to the women crazies in their midst.

Another problem is that corporations that advertise believe that women control 80% of the purchasing decisions.

That more than the right to vote has collapsed the USA.

For examples of a horrible law passed via emotion, look no further than IMBRA which calls international dating websites “Marriage Brokers” and then dares to say the men who use them are somehow worse than men who use Adult dating sites and must be background checked before they are allowed to say hello to women (Right to Assemble anyone?).

I still cannot get over how liberal judges and politicians have made some sort of deal with feminists to preserve porn and swinger sex while agreeing to regulate marriage agencies.

Then there is VAWA – Violence Against Women Act – whose very name is unconstitutional. Everything about that law and everything about most liberal judges’ reactions to challenges is emotional.

But American men are weak-kneed. Both VAWA and IMBRA could be easily challenged by just ONE person in court. But NOBODY has volunteered to go down to a courthouse and submit a paper that I can write for them.

Just email me and I can send you a pre-written challenge. We just need warm bodies as plaintiffs. Preferably a retired person with a pension or a housewife or mother of a man who was put through the ringer by VAWA.

Another thing: It is greedy lawyers and the Bar Association (ABA) that allow women to get unfair alimony and child support payments that ruin men financially making them unable to get another decent woman to date or marry. Lawyers get big profits off the concept that women deserve money at the end of a relationship.

VAWA has not hurt me because I know not to get married while the law exists.

Many US men live abroad so a divorce will not bring them court judgements of any kind. Marriage is supposed to be an attractive option with little downside.

This is another case of painting with a wide brush, and simplistically (read:lazily) defining arguments into black and white notions. You can have sensible governing with BOTH logical & emotional concerns.

This is all really odd seeing that we just saw the disgrace of a very emotionally charged and illogical presidency end and a cool-mannered, logical one take over.

Maybe you should join Glenn Beck and write black helicopter spotting guides…

What makes you think that men are more rational than women? You’d have no way of knowing how a woman feels like. I’ve known more women that could control their emotions better than men. Moron.

The basis of the argument is sound, despite some readers’ misinterpretation. The message is simple: logic is a better basis for casting a vote than emotion when selecting a leader.

The definitive source of information for gaining and maintaining power is and has been “The Prince” for a very long time. The writings there make no mention of emotions OR morality. It’s probably the most logical breakdown of the acquisition of political and social power ever written. The difference in our scenario is the impact of social morality that gets imposed by having an elected official. Social morality and mindset are imposed by voting along your beliefs, regardless of their basis. We could benefit from a more logical approach to who we vote for, but our media-crazed society is unprepared to give up its addiction to the media, and logically disassemble the messages to find a sound, logical base on which to create an argument for or against anyone running for office. This is furthered by the media’s understanding that sensationalized information improves ratings, and as such sells more advertising, etc… This takes away all motivation to remove the spin from the news, and encourages news outlets to spin things even more. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s true.

America gets the president it deserves, plain and simple. Until we are willing to think for ourselves, and not just swallow what’s fed to us, don’t expect improvement, in fact, don’t expect anything except disappointment.

I really don’t think this article was intended against women themselves. Reading through the comments indicates to me that the article was written out of an emotional feeling against the democrats…lol. Does anyone else see that?

This article is clearly just emotional. Does not talk about everything the U.S. has been successful since the vote. To me that seems a bit baist and therefore, not anything more than an ateempt to stir more issues!

The signing of the declaration of independence: the beginning of the end of america?

SEE WHAT I DID THERE

now look, im not saying the slave laws should be repealed, but we would all be better off if we owned slaves, right?

bwahahahahaha nice logic

you emotional conservatives need to work on your logic using abilites

Maybe you should take a little responsibility for yourself and the world around you. Let’s all just take the credit when things go well for us and blame women when they don’t.

lol epic fail

Let’s see – all these mass killings of late were performed by men. Very rational and logical behavior. I would be very careful about generalizing a whole gender. But then that would be too rational, wouldn’t it?

If this article weren’t so sickening it would be laughable.

WW2 was a horrible war because of technology.

If wearing a helmet is a “pansy” law then so is wearing a seatbelt. If you had lost a child due to a head injury you wouldn’t be complaining about safety laws.

I strongly hope that all of the women in the comments that agreed with this article followed your advice and did not vote. It would be a favor to our country if they continue to abstain.

I am a women, and I think this article is crap.

You say that women lack the logic of men. Yet, women have been working with logic for a very long time. Stretching a buck and balancing a checkbook, raising children, working out time schedules, knowing what everybody needs and providing it, etc. All these things are part of the traditional role of a women, and require far more logic than any factory worker used on a day to day basis.In fact, nurturing a family and nurturing a country could be said to done in the same fashion, with the country on a macro level.

The reason for for ‘the emotional laws’ is that as a society we are progressing. Government is more concerned with social issues and the welfare of it’s people. This is a good thing! Both men and women of the middle and lower classes are much better off now than they were 100 or 200 years ago.

By the way, I hope your children are wearing helmets. There is much more traffic now than there used to be.

Women are half of our society. Say what you may about all women voting differently from all men, but women vote and have done so for a long time. Simply because this changed the style of American politics and government does not mean it took a turn for the worse, it simply means that an entire half of the population suddenly became a factor in the democratic process and therefore the government HAD to change.

I could just as easily, based on this same logic, say: “If all men were to be striped of their right to vote we would never have a Republican president again, and America would be better off because the women would have the power and the female half of the population is voting for and against the issues that matter to THEM.”

disregarding the incredible generalizations towards ALL women I just made, it all boils down to WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO PLEASE AS A GOVERNMENT AND A VOTER.

This entire argument is based on the “good old days” when women could not vote and everything was peachy keen. Unfortuantely at that time you only had half of your voters voting to please that same half of the population. With the incorporation of a differnt set of socialized beings (women) you can no longer omly please the original half of the ruling society.

These days we all get a say, and if some men and women choose to vote based on their feeling rather than their logic, more power to them. It is not godd, or bad, it simply is the way the government and our sociiety’s culture has evolved.

Teeheehee, this article is funny…..

not very logical tho, and has lots of typos

I don’t know what is worse, the original poster of the article who obviously sees the world through some distorted scope and lives in a fantasy land where he knows everything that is best for the world and believes he has at last found the reason our country is crumbling like a frail pastry, it’s women voters! Dag nabbit, took er jabs!

OR

The women who post comments on this article saying they agree, to grossly over simplify their rhetoric, they are saying something along the lines of “I agree, I have no idea what I want in this world nor do I have any opinions on how it should be run, at most I should only be able to nudge and prod my man into voting my way”.

The “author” of this article even says himself, “I also realize that there are many men who think more emotionally then some women do”, this statement becomes more true every day, yet he continuously and vigorously refutes himself and demonstrates unprecedented ignorance by saying that womens (and men’s as well if we are not keeping a double standard here) emotions (your brains initial response to external stimulus, MIGHT BE WORTH SOMETHING) are sinking the ship that is America.

Maybe our ship is sinking because the captain is an idiot and goes full speed ahead without looking for any icebergs, hmm?

The women and the lefties softens up up the country. Just look at all the communist countries and their emotionally controlled politics. The lofty summercamps of the gulag commes to mind.

You might want to look at europe where women have voted for a longer time then in USA, and not a single country has a legislation as messed up as the US. There is something wrong with your system, but it isnt the women voting.

If you want to base all decisions on logic I assume your next entry will be about how its about time to separate the church from the republican party.

Crazy/soft/stupid laws has been a long tradition in the US, most of them put to print long before women got to vote.

Yeah, men gave us George Bush! Why would we ever not trust them???

I find it hard to beleive that someone over the age of 14 wrote this. The arguments used are full of half-truths, ambiguities, erroneous fact-reporting and either unjustifed or unsound logic. It’s interesting that the cruxes of the argument either hang on research the author begs of the reader, or clever phrases such as “Think about it?” (replete with a published grammatical error).
I find it difficult to accept any opinion as fact, but especially ones so rife with spelling, grammar, and logic errors. Even the former Presiden’t’s name (whom I got the gist is someone the author fully esteems) is misspelled here. Give the dead their quiet mercies, for God’s sake, and spell the man’s name correctly!
I guess the by the number of replies to this “article” that we still have a very long way to go towards true equality in this country on SO many levels. This argument, if you choose to call it such, does less to argue its own point than it does to tear down those core ideals of freedom and democracy, to which you so fervently aspouse that you aren’t against! No wonder the Chinese are expected to become a super-power soon. T.T
“America has become a country of whining, sniveling, emotional pansies…” Hmmm… “Think about it?” Apparently the author couldn’t be forced to do so by a mule team.
In my experience I find that usually people who choose to eloquate on topics of masculinity do so based on their own personal insecurities. Emotional indeed. I find it very hard to beleive someone who was once solely dependent on a tit for milk could truly be so cold. And so in fact, this is just another case of the hurt dog crying the loudest. Grow a pair, dude.

Great article, but what I want to know is, WHAT THE Bleep ARE ALL THESE WOMEN HERE DOING OUT OF THE BleepING KITCHEN?

Author wrote:
“Some of you you dislike the premise of my thought so much that you want to say something against it, but you have no good educated argument that you can come up with”

AND ALSO WROTE:

“Now I understand that many of you are young, your arguments and the words you use reveal your immaturity. However, some day you will wake up and wonder why you did and said many of the things you do today. When that day comes we on the right will gladly accept you with open arms. You see, many of us were once where you are now, young, immature, uneducated (in life,) confused, misled, and emotional. Those who do not eventually wake up, will forever be like Libby. You see, Libby is always trying to find a way to accept any immoral, disgusting, illogical idea the left comes up with because she cannot fathom the idea of ever agreeing with those on the right.”

ME: Do you really think your response is an educated one? It seems to me you are just taking shots at the “LEFT” side lol. Doesn’t seem educated at all.
Your responses don’t seem very logical at all, and instead, very emotional.

Also, why do you keep making Left sided, or right sided comments? You obviously had a hidden agenda with this article. It was all about, “the right side is better”. And FYI, not all right wingers agree with you, and they don’t need you to speak for them.

So in the authors (and many commenters) mind, logical = republican = they agree with me, emotional = democratic = they disagree with me, me, me, me, and just me. (ie, what happened to “we the people”?)

Have you (logically?) considered the possibility that logical people may want to have oh, say, universal health care, choice on abortion, a social safety net ? all this based on oh, so, shocking things like facts? ALL other industrialized countries have a much stronger social safety net than the USA, and it shows in their economies, etc.

I guess you would probably call me an emotional democrat feminazi here (I’m actually a Golwater conservative male). I fully support womes right to vote, national healthcare (as a way to strengthen our economy), pro choice, and lets legalize pot!

Its insane that todays republican party has been taken over by the religious right and illogical people (that think they are logical).

This republican self delusion that they are somehow superior and logical is what got us into the current mess. No doubt you’ll want to blame the democrats like barney franks about the problems, conveniently ignoring that republicans have dominated congress / senate for a full 12 straight years (under clinton, then under bush). Now we’re paying for it!

Bless you, I would not consider voting republican simply because the party today does not represent the constitution, nor is fiscally conservative.

Jeanette Renkin was the only female congressmen in the House of Representative at the time. SHE WAS THE ONLY DISSENTING VOTE WHEN CONGRESS VOTED TO GO TO WAR.

As a woman apart of the scientific community, I have spent many years developing an incredibly logical and sensible decision-making mind frame.

I do believe that the problem you are in fact addressing is in the state of mind that ‘women’ are all the same. Women are not, in fact, all the same. It is true, women are wired differently than men. By genetics we are softer, and more emotional than men. But genetics does NOT decide everything about our behaviour. I may feel more emotional than a man, but my will power and thought process is far tougher than my inner emotions.

Around the time that your amendment was created, women were being raised in a society where they were shot down in favor of men, and treated differently. They did not feel a need to engage in a decision-making society, they had no experience in such matters. Thus when they were finally involved in voting, they did not know what things (other than emotions) to base their decisions on. This is just one plausible idea as to why women voted differently than men at the beginning.

I was raised in a household where my mother and father taught me that EVERYTHING needs to be thought through with a logical and scientific basis. I was taught that education, work, and keeping my head cool in every situation is the key to functioning in society.

Compare the women of today to the women of yester-years. Do you really believe women have not evolved more logical thinking? If more women were raised the way I was, under the training that everything needs proof, every thought needs to be clearly said with logistics behind it, then this whole essay of yours would be sent right out the window.

The solution to all this is not by claiming that women are the end of America, the solution is to TEACH YOUR DAUGHTERS THEY CANNOT JUST MINDLESSLY THINK WITHOUT LOGIC. Sons have an easier time at understanding that, but women can be just as logical.

Just because I am wired to think more emotional than a man, does not mean I will actually listen to it. I felt a burning anger reading your essay, but I am not responding with anger, I am responding with an alternative approach to explain why the female demographic votes are different, other than plain genetics. In the science community, you must take into account various reasons attributed to a cause, and not just one.

In this case, I am asking you not to generalize all women as emotional people who do not think their decisions through. I am asking you to take into account what causes their behaviour and why some women are more logical than others and to take note that more and more women are becoming this ‘logical, independent’ women.

the reason there are quote brackets is cuz i put this on a forum that this article was posted on and i don’t really feel like getting rid of them

[QUOTE]From the beginning of time women have been the emotional nurturers of society while men have been the logical protectors and managers. It was the men who had to do the dirty deeds that required more logic then emotion. Men have always debated and discussed what it is they thought was best for their communities. There has always been strong women have stood behind their men and supported them in the tough decisions they had to make. Behind the scenes these strong women would prod and nudge because they thought the men moved to slow at times.[/QUOTE]
That’s a matter of opinion really. I’m making a generalization and i might be wrong, but i have seen or heard of far more fights involving two males than two females at school or outside, and logically, it is better to avoid a fight and besides, it’s not like men can’t be emotional and women can’t be logical. And secondly, if there are strong women, they should be able to make their own decisions. a married couple should be mutually supporting each other and working together, not just the woman to the man as suggested.

[QUOTE]However it was that slow and methodical thought process that allowed for an orderly progression that worked for thousands of years. And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.[/QUOTE]
First of all, there were more countries than just America involved. Second of all, all the leaders of the countries involved happened to be men. Third of all, it’s not like men did a great job preventing wars either.

[QUOTE]It wasn’t long before the politicians started passing laws that made the more emotional voter satisfied. Just a cursory look at many of the feel good laws that have been passed by the federal, state, and local governments since 1920 is enough evidence to make my point. Just in California alone, over 200 new laws get passed every year by politicians who think more with their hearts then with their brains.[/QUOTE]
Well, seeing that previously the author said that women affected the men’s votes and there are strong women behind the strong men….

[QUOTE]Why else would California have a law on the books that requires all persons under 18 years of age to wear a helmet while operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard. Or while wearing in-line or roller skates, or while riding upon a non motorized scooter or skateboard as a passenger? Then there are the Federal laws that restrict the use of children under 18 from doing any of a number of non dangerous tasks for an employer. Laws which only limits the employers desire to even hire minors. These are just two examples of laws that only an overprotective mother would support.[/QUOTE]
I find those laws a bit more logical than emotional really, but that’s just my opinion. (Ironic, my dad is FAR more overprotective than my mom. My mom has never bothered telling me to wear a helmet, if my dad catches me without a helmet, i’m dead lol)

And well, i’m too lazy to bother quoting and stating reasons why its irrational for the rest of the article

The point is, OneVike, you’re being completely irrational, and emotional, not logical.

Few more things: EQ is supposedly worth more smarts than an IQ. Generally speaking, politicians are smart, but it’s not they’re all like 150 IQs. And the person with the highest IQ in the world, marilyn vos savant, who firstly, i’ll say that she’s a woman, and second of all, all she does is a magazine and she’s an author, etc. See the wonders that IQ has done for her.

I can only hope the woman that agree with this idiot aren’t hypocritical enough to vote anyways

Here’s why you’re all wrong.

If men are rational, and should be the rulers, then planned economics are natural, and therefore justified.

Conservative ideology in America comes from Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes said that humans (not just men or women) are irrational. Capitalism depends on people being selfish, individualistic, and emotional in order to exist.

If you are exalting rationality and logical decision making, then you belong over with John Locke, whose logic inspired liberalism, socialism, communism, and structured economics.

you sir are a disgrace to the human race. Go live in Saudi Arabia if you truly believe this, then you’ll get what you want.

You know, someone once suggested to me that most ultra-conservatives are actually suffering from either a paranoid personality disorder, a narcissistic personality disorder or both.

I’m starting to agree.

As a woman who can think with both sides of her brain, I’m afraid I have to tell *you* to quit whining and suck it up.

Massive troll is massive….

and successful.

My response is posted here: http://robot-heart-politics.tumblr.com/post/91641042/womens-right-to-vote-the-beginning-of-the-end-for

If you don’t feel like clicking on the link, I can paraphrase: I have no idea how someone so up on logic managed to get through this entire argument without once presenting a logical, factual, historical example to back his subjective claims, or how someone so up on Reagan can’t even figure out how to spell the man’s name.

As for the rest of you, for people who purport to be stalwarts for logic, there isn’t much to be found here.

Somebody posted this on Digg just so the entire world can see what an enormous jack a** you are.

Let me take wild guess… you hate women. Period. Who knows why? Maybe Mommy didn’t love you enough. Maybe you have never had sex without money and/or violence involved. Maybe you’re a closet self-hating homosexual. Maybe you’re just a ignorant a**hole. Who knows? Who really cares? One thing is sure, you hate women, and your threatened by them.

You are a sad, sad pathetic little man who gives all men a bad name, if not the entire human race. My woman is my equal in every way, and, I’m proud to say, the much smarter one. Try telling her she shouldn’t have the right to vote, and she’d slap your ugly, hate-filled smug face so hard your Daddy would bleed.

Oh, and for all those “ditto-heads” who say their wives “agree” with them. Sure, I say that too if I was married to a violent *****bag who kicks me down the basement steps every time the meatloaf is a little dry.

You watch who your calling a Pansie, you fascist, racist, sexist, stupid twerp. I voted for Obama, hate Reagan, and challenge you to try to do something about it. Stop going around and trying to put down women. Or this “Pansie” may find you, and give you a taste of his steel-toed boots into that shriveled little lump you call your genitals.

I don’t even think women should be allowed to drive. Have you ever seen one try and parallel park. Our streets aren’t even safe anymore.

PS: So let me get this straight. It’s okay to tell ADULTS who they can or can’t marry, and it’s okay to tell ADULTS what they can or can’t do with their reproductive parts…but tell CHILDREN to put a helmet on, and we’ve become a nanny state? Really? This argument makes sense to you?

@Tina

Absolutely not true. Divorce rates, abortion rates, welfare recipients per capita and crime are all much more prevalent in southern states. Last time i looked, Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the nation(might be due to catholicism).

Well, the problem with this argument was that any semblance of logic in politics went out the window during the run up to the civil war at the latest (something about bloody shirts used in speeches). The simple fact that if logic in politics existed at that point, the civil war never would have happened and there would still be slavery in the south.

Hence your argument stutters since it relies on the assumption that logic was there previous to the 19th amendment.

If that doesn’t make any sense, allow me to explain.

There was about 15 slave states back in the day, and if they just never ratified a constitutional amendment banning slavery they could stonewall that into eternity until the USA acquired about 10 more states than we currently have (51/15 is less than 3/4).

If the goal was to preserve slavery (as the leaders of the south maintained) then there is no logic in the action of the south in politics in the run up to, and in firing the first shot of, the civil war.

Further, that era saw the use of “bloody shirt” argument in politics. The “bloody shirt” argument is one that relies almost entirely on emotion to be remotely convincing (named so for the use of a “bloody shirt” as a prop during a speech, but frankly no shirt required).

All of this emotion in politics, well before the 19th amendment.

I chalk it up to humans being stupid in general. I mean, we’re all basically idiot monkeys, slaves to our emotions. All of us. It spills over into things that it shouldn’t spill over into.

Frankly I agree that emotion has helped to bring this country down, it has done so in a much more simplistic way that described. Basically the public (heretofore referred to as “the plebeians”) are easily swayed by emotion. Politicians hence find the path of least resistance to get elected. Hence if you aren’t appealing to emotions you are at a disadvantage, yet the more that these appeals are used the harder it becomes to use anything else. It’s a vicious cycle. And we fall for it. Every time. Just BTW Reagan was one of the worst. He could take almost anything and argue it with an emotional appeal. Masterful. Insidious. And good looking. It’s no wonder he got elected.

Almost all emotion, hardly any logic. Anywhere.

Though in all honesty this applies to the entire world. Not just America.

A world of emotion driven monkeys.

Scary isn’t it?

As the poster above notes, the Republican party gave us George Bush *twice*. It would then, by the logic of this article, be the woman’s vote that gave the democrats the needed edge in voting for Obama and hence the change he brings with the Democratic party. Also, was McCain (email illiterate) even a viable option in today’s technical world? Especially with Phill “let’s deregulate Wall Street” Graham at the head of the federal reserve?

First off – your an idiot
Second off – Around the sixth post down, the one that starts with: I am a woman and I totally agree with you. That is less convincing due to the fact that your name is Ron.

Now time for me to get to the actual article. Polar bears cannot swim 100 miles without tiring AT ALL that is complete bu**s*it lactic acid will start to build up before the Bleeping hundreth mile you moron, they are drowning why do you think thats happening, because they’re not tired. Polar bears don’t have gatorade man. To continue, this article is less about women and more about you saying that democrats are bad and that women ruined it by electing them. Which second off is untrue seeing as how since Lyndon Johnson Barack is just the third democrat elected to 5 republicans. And Clinton and Carter were fairly moderate democrats. Also, the facts that women are somehow corrupting politics is based on no concrete evidence whatsoever, you just threw out a couple of menial laws about wearing helmets for safety while portraying politicians as being held hostage by hoards of emotion toting women demanding kneepads be strapped onto every child with ten yards of a skateboard. You simply state this insidious force of human emotion, good god human emotion, is ruining politics because a democrat got elected and by golly his own party voted for him. You sir are a moron and I hope you some day develop these human emotions that you seem to dreadfully fear.

For the person who wrote: “In my experience I find that usually people who choose to eloquate on topics of masculinity do so based on their own personal insecurities. Emotional indeed.”

This is a non-sequitur and emotional in itself (sounds like a Republican feminist to me because the Republican feminists use this tactic of “stop whining” at FreeRepublic.com and elsewhere to give feminism total control by brow-beating the males on the right).

Those who write about men’s rights issues do so because they have recognized that women have taken over both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the USA and there is NO third party allowed due to the mathematics of a faulty Constitution that gives elections to winners of a plurality (bad idea not taken up by democracies our veterans died for and created).

It isn’t the women’s vote that is the problem. It is the two party system in a wimpy nation that let both parties get controlled by one gender (not the males).

OneVike, why don’t you have you real name on the blog for something you strongly believe in?

You claim to be an upholder on logic when you can’t even spell or put a sentence together correctly. This is one of the worst written essays I’ve ever read. Where did you get your education? Or did you even get one? My guess would be that you had to drop out because your girlfriend pregnant since you chauvinistic pig republicans don’t believe in birth control, abortion and many other logical solutions to todays problems. I’m a woman and happen to vote libertarian instead of democrat or republican because I have a brain fully capable of thinking through issues for itself. I don’t let my emotions get in the way, so I don’t believe in a nanny state, but I also believe that you have absolutely no right to take my rights away, whether or not my opinions are the same as yours. We are your equals, whether you like it or not.
Besides all of that, you act as though it’s as simple as that. People vote for certain parties for a variety of reasons ranging from their upbringing, where they live, what religion they are (if they have one), etc, etc, etc. Men are still the main people running for office and they are the one putting these bills and laws into action, whether or not women voted for them. Republicans sicken me even more than the democrats because of scum like you.

People like the author and those that concur with this article are the ones holding the US back.

I know this may be a stupid question…but who is the person cited as the Editors Note? I’m sure its not the author? But who is it?

Editors Note: It is any one of the few people who are taking the time to review, post, and occassionally respond to these comments. In this case it has been Tina most of the time. Thanks for asking.

Wow!

The logic used here in this argument is absurd.

You say WWII was the result of emotion driven elected officals.

I would argue that WWII was the result of a cripled Germany, being taken oven by a mad MAN who though the logical “Final Solution” to the “Jewish Problem” was to eradicate them, No election got Hitler into power, HE took it.

You also state that due to emotion we have poor laws on the books, like requiring children to wear helmets when riding bikes. Again i Argue that those laws exist as a logical end to the desire to protect ones children, and that need for protection is both logical and emotional and is equal for both sexes.

The war on terror, prisoner abuse, warrentless wire taps, are all programs initaited by the right that are more emotional than logical. the emotion being fear.

the republican party is a party driven by fear, fear of others, and a fear of god. the right relish emotion just as much if not more than the left, and it is this conservative emotion that is truly dangerous fro America. you ever wonder what this coutry would look like if the religious fundamentalists got true control, just look towards the middle east.

on global warming: to deny it exists is ilogical. we already have proof that we can affect our environment for better or worse, just look at what we can build for a positive example, of the hole in the ozone layer braught about by the use of CFC’s for a negative example.

we have proof that CO2 can warm a planet to disasterous levels (Venus is consistantly hot with a CO2 atmosphere, and mercury the closest to the sun heats up and cools down.)

We have the capacity to utilize our resources faster than the planet can recouperate them ie cutting down forests faster than they can regrow (some debate on this, but places like greece, where man has been using wood for a long time have next to zero lumber resources), or man made extinction of animals purposfully or not. the idea here is that not switching to a green, sustainable life style is ilogical and dumb. the Earth is not a closed system as it receives energy from the sun which we can utilize. continuing to use oil meant we are treating the Earth like a closed system, and we will eventually run out of our resources due to continued human growth, unless we switch to something else.

anyway this rant has gone on long enough. political ideologies are inherently emotional, and have nothing to do with women. you post for example was logically flawed, and was oozing with emotion. what do you have against women anyway?

You deserve the right to your opinion, even if it is based out of ignorance and a highly inflated ego. I respect you for publishing your crazy, idiotic ramblings on the internet, then actually getting attention that you do not deserve. Congratulations.

The feminists and socialists will bring us down? Heard of Sweden? Country full of feminists and socialists. Doing quite well.

I think its people like you, who fall in the category of “Neo-Nazis” will bring us down.

With love and peace,

Your Fellow Believer in Free Speech American Brother

you basically just wrote an article expressing that you don’t like who women vote for, blame them for ruining the county, and infer that all women aren’t capable of making logical decisions. You womder why women don’t vote the way you do….

Coming from someone who has studied Marxism… Obama is sadly nowhere near a Marxist. He’s the farthest thing from.

If Obama was a Marxist:

-The banks would be nationalized completely, not just pumped with money.

-The Auto Industry would be nationalized.

-The Oil Industry would be nationalized

-Health Care companies would be gone and one central health care organization would exist.

– Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Sun, HP… our big cash cows, would be nationalized and the profits go toward college education or low-income programs.

Obama is just another American politician. He’s not even that socialist. He doesn’t support legalizing Marijuana, which any good commie would realize will bring in so much money.

1) QUOTE:

Posted by: Ron at March 29, 2009 07:00 PM

I am a woman and I totally agree with you.

–And your name is RON? Right.

2) QUOTE:

Posted by: Roger Dodger at March 30, 2009 10:43 PM

…Learn the difference between then, and than.

–Roger wins at life. He earns ti*s and the internet.

3) Go ahead and keep preaching this stuff, OneVike. With this golden material, I hope you become Republican spokesperson of the century and guarantee a Democratic president for the next ten elections.

It makes me wonder why you are able to write this ridiculous blog about your opinions, but when Libby responds, she is being a ridiculous woman. You are so quick to point the finger at women, when there are too many other factors to consider. You cannot use the example of global warming because you have no idea how people would react to it without a woman’s voice. Also, learn proper grammar, you idiot.

Wow… is it just me, or is this article an emotional argument trying to disguise itself as logical?
All of the emotions coming from the hard Right supporters just makes this whole thing seem farcical.
I myself am much more emotional than my wife. I don’t believe that many people’s votes are based on cold, hard logic. Rather, our emotions are played by either party.
Also, as others have pointed out, our nation was not the superpower that it has become until after the 19th amendment was passed.

Are you thinking of the same Ann Coulter I am? The Ann Coulter I am thinking of is definately a woman who is worthy of recognition, but to recognize her for her logical mind and lack of emotion would be a terrible mistake.

I’m not going to bother arguing on whether this article has any truth to it or not. It’s a complicated issue, and a cohesive response in favor of or in rebuttal to it would be a waste of time.

However.

First, OneVike, if you want any argument of yours to be taken seriously, especially one in which you attack the capabilities of such a huge demographic, I suggest you get your basic grammar cleaned up.

Second, back up your arguments with some evidence, not just speculation. What you seem to have here is little more than an emotional response to the alleged destructive power of women’s suffrage, rather than a well thought-out logical, rational allegation backed by hard evidence. Ironically.

Third, correlation does not mean causation. Just because the country’s condition has worsened in some ways since 1920 does not mean that the trend was or is caused by women’s votes, or that the trend did not already exist. There have been a huge number of other influences in the past 90+ years, many of them novel to the history of mankind. To pin the current negative conditions of America on even one cause, with or without proof, is a vast oversimplification.

Finally, you might note, that there is little in your article that could not be easily transposed to an argument against racial suffrage. All men, regardless of race, were granted the right to vote in 1870, and the federal prohibition of the restriction of voting rights based on poll taxes, often used to prevent poor non-whites from voting, did not occur until 1964. For the past 140 years, minorities have been voting, likely increasingly (I didn’t look up statistics, I’ll leave that to anyone with contentions). Such a timeline is not irreconcilably different from your rough and unsupported timeline of women’s suffrage starting in 1920. What’s the difference between pointing to women as overly emotional, and pointing to disenfranchised minorities as uncivilized, uncultivated, and ruled by emotion, rather than logic and probing thought?

Anyways, beyond that, I won’t get into specifics. Though, if you really want to blame a segment of the voters for the current issues in this country, try blaming the government’s allowance of everyone to vote regardless of their education or comprehension of political, social, and economic issues, rather than merely their gender. (And, as a side note, if women’s suffrage did have a negative impact in and after 1920, it would be my bet it was tied to their lower levels of education as compared to men, not to their emotions.)

So if these crazed women illogically vote for Father figures? What is is Men vote for? Breasts (Palin) Higher taxes? Pe**s emulating warfare missles? Monster Trucks and cheap gas? Isn’t it funny how men juts assume they know what they are talking about because they have a Bleep? Most of the people I have met, men included, don;t even really understand what they vote for. Talk about “emotional” Please….

What do you backwoods racists not understand about democracy? Women are as much a part of this society as men if they vote for what you illiterate fools call a “socialist” then so be it.

Move somewhere where there are no women and see how far you get.

this is trash. you are a bleeping chauvinistic bleep to even think this bull bleep. i know everyone has the right to their own opinion but how twisted and backwards are you? keep your 18th century ideals in your head and not in the already fbleeped up blogosphere

You backward, bigoted, sexist pig. You ought to be castrated with a rusty spoon!

YEAh!!! RIGHT ON BRO!!! women are ruining this country with their influence and the Bleep, bleep, bleep bleep, and bleep arent helping either!

Editors note: Sorry pal…that was the last straw.

I’m having a hard time believing this isn’t satire.
If not, then I’ve pretty much lost all faith in humanity.

Wow…

OneVike:

I love how you keep spinning and twisting the comments against your essay to depict the authors as complete idiots. Class act.

It’s people like you who drain the analytic capabilities out of women, people who generalize and ridicule the possiblity of a woman making a logical choice. You acknowledge that men can be emotional too, but as women can be overly influenced by emotions, so can men. (Think about the mob mentality of Nazi Germany- was the anger felt towards Jews not started by men?)

You say, “And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.” World War II was the biggest war in history because of technological innovation, as well as the involvement of most, if not all, of the world at that time’s major powers. Even before women gained suffrage, there were brutal wars and battles.

The sheer amount of typos and poor choice of words in your essay is astounding. If you are trying to make a point, wouldn’t it be logical to have them notice the content of your piece and not the errors in spelling?

OneVike, you are not a woman. Do not start blaming women for America’s ills until you understand the modern role of women: true, there are some who throw their votes to the candidate with a heartfelt story, but men do too. Any recent presidential candidate come to mind? (hint: war hero) This country of “pansies,” as you put it, is not only made up of women. America, at large, is still dominated by men. Do you have a wife? I bet she is miserable.

Please cite your research…

Without proper citation and research appended this is clearly just an attempt at useless emotional and political provocation.

Please do what you preach. Think logically and perform research (includes citation.)

The author’s obviously a woman because the argument lacks fact or research, but rather false premises and emotional thought.

You’re using stupid reasoning to hide your own sexist self.
Grow up and open your mind.

I think the most important message to glean from this has been completely overlooked because people are too busy here going on about how it is so offensive/brave to blame women for the pu**ification of the west.
The real culprits though aren’t the women. No, the culprits here are the politicians playing the peoples emotions as the writer puts it “Like a Stradivarius”.
The fact of the matter is that if we do not wake people up en masse to this fact we will continue to be led down the primrose path by the Judas goats in power to the slaughter (and remember there is no slaughter without laughter).
There is however, no need to despair. While they may be overly emotional, they hate to be played. You just need to explain to them how they are being played and who is playing them and the quickly put 2 and 2 together.

Hell hath no wrath.

This is the worst written argument I have come across since high school english class. It makes claims and then the proof is “…think about it.” You are writing the article dude. You think about it, do some research to substantiate your claim, and tell me what you found. Thats how you make an argument.

That said I can debunk the entire theory in one paragraph. The author argues that from the “beginning of time” (neither men nor women existed but ok) men have been the cool headed logical vulcans (like Spock), and women have been the emotional nurturers. Hmm. Ever seen two men break each others noses over a spilled beer? I have. Ever seen a grown man get so mad at a video game he punches a wall and breaks his hand? I have. Both of these actions would seem more emotional than logical, which leads me to believe both women and men sometimes act on emotion rather than logic. If you argue men act on emotion less than women, I would say what about the women who don’t act on emotion and the men who do? If the measurement of a successful society is the logical thinking of its leaders, then wouldn’t a test of logic be better on determining suffrage than the sex of the voters?

There was a time when you had to be free, white twenty-one,and be able to read and write properly in order to vote. If we return to those days, the author would not be allowed to vote.

I know its easy to blame everything on somebody else, but seriously, this is a huge pile of c*ap. Man up and stop blaming other people. This country is bleeped because of a lot of reasons and a lot of people. There are soooo many cases of men in this country holding a high political position who have been complete bleeping morons only thinking about themselves and power. If you are going to blame women, then first take a look at all of this horrible s**t that has happened that has been caused by men. We are all to blame.

And as far at the “God given right” debate goes, THAT is emotional. Any person using the “logic” you discuss would leave religion out of this. God is illogical and irrelevent.

The author seems to not understand that governing a society of people means addressing the issues and concerns of ALL the people, not just some of them.

I leave to others here to debunk the author’s absurd statements about sex differences in decision making, let alone his beliefs as to what our society’s priorities should be.

Your ignorance astounds me. While we’re at it, lets just change the law so that only Christian white guys can vote. I believe we can agree that African-Americans, Hispanics, and those of the Jewish and Islamic faiths have changed current day America, so of course, they must be bad too.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats need to get their heads out of their a**es, but if this is the sort of ideas the Republicans want to lead with, I guess you can kiss the presidency good-bye for the next 20 years.

Yes there is a problem with people voting based on emotional sentiment. Yes some woman are emotional.

Attributing the shift towards emotion based votes to women is tenuous AT BEST, down right idiotic at reasonable, and backwards thinking, closed-minded misogynistic at worse.

Republicans are probably worse if anything when it comes to winning votes based on emotion. Like it or not, religious sentiment is a feeling and not a logical argument for a candidate( oh and PS. a big no-no in government for the forefathers you so adore). Similarly what do you thinking harping on terrorism and national security plays on??? You guessed it fear, an EMOTION.

That said I agree completely with the idea that emotion had very little place in public discourse. However just cause you say something doesn’t mean you actually follow what you say.

Considering your plea for logic, your lack of any real argument stands out even more.

Is this a joke? Look at the religious right! 100% of their vote reeks of emotions. They can’t think, let alone rationally. Democrats aren’t much better, but what can you expect from a materialistic, impersonal, self-hating culture America has come.

I was born here, and with the help of the internet, have opened my eyes to outside the red, white, and blue.

Interesting, but try using spell-check and proof-reading before you post next time, please. Seems it was written hastily, perhaps too emotionally.

Hey, I think you guys missed some. I mean, obviously women helped to ruin this country, but what about the blacks? I mean, they’ve got to be killing the republican base!

Maybe, in a perfect world, we’d secretly be able to know who black women voted for and take 2 votes away from their chosen candidate because of their double negative status!!! I mean, they’re only 3/5ths a human being!!!

Times change, and its unfortunate bigots like the author of this article can’t seem to comprehend that. If we had drawn a hard line on issues like women’s rights and equality, do you guys actually think the rest of the world would listen to our opinion? Would look to us as its leader?

Sure, people in “Nor Cal” would still be able to dream of a state of Jefferson and play in their jug bands, but fortunately for the rest of us the world doesn’t revolve around podunk idiots who think what their daddy says goes. Why don’t you ditch your bleep for your father and just go gay like everyone else? When I’m bleep, there’s nothing I like more than seeing the flames of hell rising up around me. Have fun believing in Jesus in a world where he’s increasingly irrelevant!

I hope you are seriously trolling.

OneVike repeatedly references the sentence “I am also not suggesting that the 19th amendment would, should, or ever could be reversed.” But the obvious question is: Why isn’t he?

If he believes that the country would be better off without women’s suffrage, then why does he not advocate action toward that end? Saying that the 19th “would” or “could” not be repealed makes sense, but saying that is “should” not be repealed is illogical in the context of this article. The two most likely scenarios I can think of are that he does not want to take the additional heat such advocacy would bring down on him or that he does not really believe that women’s voting rights are the scourge this article claims they are.

Based on the fact that he posted this article in the first place, I find it unlikely that he is afraid of bringing heat on himself for his opinions. I suspect his unwillingness to commit to a call for action stems from deep-seated doubts about the veracity of his position. If anyone can propose another reason for OneVike’s inconsistent position regarding the 19th Amendment, I’d be eager to hear it.

I’m a woman and am more logical and analytical than any man I’ve yet to meet, so your bigoted stereotypes are not appreciated. It’s a shame that the GOP has been usurped by narrow-minded, insecure so-called men and religious wingnuts that wish to inflict their narrow vision of the world on those who hold differing opinions. I grant you the right to your opinions, thus, logic would dictate you grant me the same right. The refusal to acknowledge that others have a right to other viewpoints is the antithesis of basic logic but rather, is steeped in emotion.

this is truly the definition of ignorance. you make claim after claim with NO evidence or back up. Hey maybe you should do some research and provide that before you embarass yourself by publishing garbage like this. AND it is not that men are less emotional than women its that they are socialized to not show emotion, thats a societal problem for you. and you want to talk about welfare and other social services, maybe, just maybe as a society we are obligated to try and resolve issues that affect our community. Its very easy to say that is is wrong to act on emotion but thats probably just becuase you arent experiencing the situation. if your child was to crack their skull open while not wearing a helmet while biking would the law matter to you then? its not a matter of emotion, its a matter of holding a value of human life and protecting it. And global warming is not brought in to light because it evokes emotion, its is brought up because it is an incredibly important environmental issue that is effecting the world as a whole. it is an unintended consequence that even those with logic didnt see coming. global warming evokes emotion because we know it has and will continue to have an impact on our lives. so unless you would like a world based soley on logical thinking and with no regulation that are aimed to protect and sustain life then you are perfectly right.

I am literally shocked by the article and comments. I honestly thought at first this was supposed to be an attempt at humor.

This has nothing to do with socialism, emotion, logic, traditional values, or anything else that is brought up. In the eyes of the law:

Either men and women are equals or not. Either white and black people are equals or not. Either 30 year olds and 60 year olds are equal or not. All equal peoples get an equal say in the government.

This article sounds like “i dont like how a certain group of people vote and the world would be a better place if they werent allowed to”. How about saying “i dont like how poor people vote so only people with a household income over 150k can vote”. It’s sickening.

If you dont consider all humans to be equals, God save our country and my God have mercy on your intolerance.

Ridiculous article, just because you don’t vote democrat, jeez.

“Posted by: Ron at March 29, 2009 07:00 PM

I am a woman and I totally agree with you.

Take a look at what’s happened to news. Used to be men would get the facts, report what happened. Now that women dominate all we get are FEELINGS. I’m personally sick of seeing women quite so much. Watch old 50’s clips and it is amazing how few women are sounding off or are even in evidence – which really is refreshing.”

Hey thanks, “Ron”.
This article disgusted me from the beginning to the end. Hey, while we’re at it, let’s blame blacks for corrupting our youth. Hooray for conservative morals.

I know one thing’s for sure: the person who wrote this will never EVER get bleeped.

He** YEA! You tell them uppity beatches whats comin! This is GOD’s country, and GOD is a MAN! A manly man, the manliest of men who only does manly things like murder firstborn sons, drown the entire world and plant fake dinosaur bones deep in the earth, and then probably goes home to beat his wife.

This is disgusting to read. Every crisis that has ever happened in a country in history has been blamed on a scapegoat. The Nazis blamed their economic instability on the Jews. Also, women are the reason that our country won WWII. Women were the ones who stepped up and started working in factories to build the tanks, guns and warships the US needed. Furthermore, women never would have even had to work in factories if men hadn’t idiotically started WWII with their Imperialistic, Nationalistic, Militaristic views that cost millions of lives.

The problem is not women voting, the problem is IDIOTS voting. You DO vote, correct?

The problem is not women voting, the problem is IDIOTS voting. You DO vote, correct?

I’ve noticed a lot of the early supporters, especially the “women,” of this argument haven’t shown up in a while. I’d like to hear logical responses to many of the criticisms that have been thrown out in the past couple of hours.

Tina, an editor, replies: I support the notion that in the past 30-40 years decisions and policy have been influenced greatly by the more traditionally feminine emotions and not always for the better. Frankly I’m too busy posting comments to respond. I’ve read a number of thoughtful engaging comments on both sides of the issue but I haven’t had time to reply. I do hope you get some responses from others.

After reading over parts of this little debate, if we can call it that, it appears people are missing the point entirely and driven to a scary mindset. The left blaming the right, picking 1 sentence of even a fragment of a sentence to use against the other. When reading the whole paragraph tells a whole different view. People wants to see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear… that is why the U.S. has such a large social scene. People likes to be around people with like minded thoughts, so with this in mind, to avoid conflicts.

Once different minds meet, it can go either way. Be logical or emotional. Show facts to prove it or pursued, or a gut feeling/belief. It can go either way, but the way the U.S. been heading is neither or, but a direction of self-destruction. This article probably has a hidden agenda, he** maybe I give the man/woman too much credit. Don’t read the article and just read the comments left behind by others. Who is emotional? Who is logical? Who is a combination of both?

As you read on, the comments start to blur away from the topic.. and blur away, and blur away and blur away… to a point where you can’t see anymore. Blindness.

Blindness, If you suddenly lost your sight right now… What do you think you do. The answer is simple, It’s like a wild animal getting cornered, you took away its freedom, what do you think that animal will do next?

Right off the bat, I bet you assumed this person was a male who written this article right? So in reality, neither side is right on this matter, but it proves one point… when logic fights emotion, neither side will affect the other in their words, both will become deaf and blind, at that point… like the wild animal when there is only 1 option left.

It doesn’t take “guts” to hide behind an on-line nickname. And just because something’s gutsy (not that this is) doesn’t mean it can’t also be moronic.

Women score higher on standardized tests, and have higher high school and college GPAs. And they were also smart enough to not vote for George Bush. Thank you, men, for eight years of utter he**.

Heh heh heh; heh heh heh heh! Why is it that anyone with access to a ***da* keyboard thinks he should actually use it?

After reading over parts of this little debate, if we can call it that, it appears people are missing the point entirely and driven to a scary mindset. The left blaming the right, picking 1 sentence of even a fragment of a sentence to use against the other. When reading the whole paragraph tells a whole different view. People wants to see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear… that is why the U.S. has such a large social scene. People likes to be around people with like minded thoughts, so with this in mind, to avoid conflicts.

Once different minds meet, it can go either way. Be logical or emotional. Show facts to prove it or pursued, or a gut feeling/belief. It can go either way, but the way the U.S. been heading is neither or, but a direction of self-destruction. This article probably has a hidden agenda, he** maybe I give the man/woman too much credit. Don’t read the article and just read the comments left behind by others. Who is emotional? Who is logical? Who is a combination of both?

As you read on, the comments start to blur away from the topic.. and blur away, and blur away and blur away… to a point where you can’t see anymore. Blindness.

Blindness, If you suddenly lost your sight right now… What do you think you do. The answer is simple, It’s like a wild animal getting cornered, you took away its freedom, what do you think that animal will do next?

Right off the bat, I bet you assumed this person was a male who written this article right? So in reality, neither side is right on this matter, but it proves one point… when logic fights emotion, neither side will affect the other in their words, both will become deaf and blind, at that point… like the wild animal when there is only 1 option left.

I’m generally considered a conservative (in Canada). I believe lots of things, including that emotion and religion should be separate from the law in most cases.

I find your argument lacking in strong points, evidence and conscience. Believe what you like, but at least espouse it with some kind of intelligence. For example, you insinuate that WWII was instigated by women getting the vote, which is just completely moronic.

You also suggest that women exercised their ‘right’ to vote at home with their husbands (and I have noticed many of those agreeing with you suggesting the same thing), but the entire article is about how women are too “emotional” to vote. Don’t you find that slightly contradictory? If women are too emotional to vote and yet are still exercising their ‘rights’ through their husbands, the vote is being swayed by this so called ’emotion’ anyway, albeit by less. Why not just say that women should be abused at home and told to be quiet in general? Or perhaps you should suggest that men should not listen to their wives and be “real men”. Either way you are committing a fallacy and it trashes your argument.

You state in your introductory paragraph that many consider equality of the sexes to be a giant step forward in history, but you suggest that women getting the vote is tantamount to equality. In reality, the entire period of Feminism happened in the 60’s and 70’s and women STILL have not achieved total equality. Whether they were able to vote or not, many laws were unfair to women well past the 1920’s.

Finally, I find the following statement ludicrous and unnecessary: “Why else would California have a law on the books that requires all persons under 18 years of age to wear a helmet while operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard.” The reason has nothing to do with women and nothing to do with the vote; it has to do with the safety of children and adults who practice sports where they could easily get injured. Skateboarders (and cyclists) in particular ride on the street and are at constant risk of falling or getting hit by a car. They are more likely to survive a fall or an accident with a helmet. This is not overprotective; overprotective would be enacting a law that suggests that all the additional padding (knees, elbows, wrists, etc.) is legally required.

I think you would find much more consensus if you wrote a well formulated, grammatically correct article that had ample evidence to support your claim instead of an emotional rant with spurious pseudo-citations.

Stop blaming others for the high ranking conservatives inability to effectively communicate with the masses. The idea that if only the “right” people voted everything would be better is completely un-American. This train of thought is why there is a backlash against conservatives. I hope one day the republican party is not run by the christian right and is actually fiscally conservative. Until then expect this so called “socialism” to continue.

whoever idiot wrote this article needs to educate himself and I don’t just mean grammar.

research shows that ALL decisions are made through emotions, people who have damage to their emotion center in their brain are completely incapable of making ANY decisions, even the most simple ones such as when to set up an appointment with the dentist. it makes no sense to claim that women decide based on emotions and men don’t, because every single person needs to have functional emotional system in order to make decisions. simple scientific fact!

on another note, you seem to have a problem with wearing helmets but you are completely ignorant of the biggest problem in this country right now – the financial crisis. Wall Street is predominantly MALE and women’s voting rights don’t really play any role there, yet your “logical” sex managed to bring the whole system down without much trouble. or are you gonna find some ridiculous explanation of how women secretly drove the financial system to a catastrophe too?

you americans need to stop looking for someone to blame and actually start working on yourselves – educate yourselves, read some books other than the bible – because your nation is getting dumber and dumber and that’s your main problem.

Hear hear! Grant’s right. Not only should we penalize candidates for every woman who votes for them, we should double the penalty based on ethnicity.

Let’s not forget that only slightly before this in the history of the Nation was the Irish invasion. Everyone’s totally afraid to talk about it now, but this massive influz of papists was really the start of the decline of America. You want logical voting? Repeal citizenship for Irish-descended people.

For all you weak-kneed wanna-be conservatives who flinch at this sentiment, grow a pair. If you can’t honestly look at your attitudes toward the other national cancers like voting women and Hispanic immigrants, and make the totally 100% logical leap from there to realizing Irish (and yes German!) immigrants started the long decline, you’re not a true conservative and you don’t really love the US. Use your brain and not your weak heart and the only conclusion you can come to is that the only legitimate Americans descend from the British.

Signed, Charles,
A Proud Republican

More proof Satan runs the far right.

As a Christian, I find many of the posts on this page highly offensive and disturbing. Spewing bigotry and hatred is against fundamental values of Christianity. What happened to love, charity, and understanding? (Perhaps these virtues are too emotional for this crowd?) Next time you voice opinions, think deeply about what Jesus really would do, and if you have a hard time, re-read the New Testament. I think you’d be shocked to realize which characters you currently resemble.

As a woman, I am shocked not that there are still occasional men who hold such low opinions of women, but that there are women cheerfully agreeing. Being a woman is not shameful. A person’s gender has no bearing on the importance of his or her opinions. I’m sure my small post will not change any minds on this thread, but I felt I had to say something. Women, (and men) God created you all as beautiful individuals. He loves you enough to know all the hairs on your head. His decision to give you a mind and opinions was not an accident. Don’t let a human tell you that it was.

As a physicist, I can say confidently, that this article includes a distinct lack of logic. And, as a female physicist, I hold myself up as an example in whom logic and femininity can co-exist. Now, I admit that not everything I do is completely logical. My faith, for instance, is entirely emotional and honestly I have no control over it. I could stop believing in God as easily as I could stop believing in the existence of my right foot. But, as somebody who values logic, to the author of this article: Please don’t claim to be using logic. You tarnish its name.

Ahhh, they’re just uptight because it’s been proven by standardized test scores, IQ tests and every other test out there, not to mention plain ol’ common sense, that women, are indeed, more intelligent than men. If woman had been given the same rights as animals all those years ago, perhaps we would have an inkling of what peace would be like. But men through the ages, have always attempted to bring down all that which they don’t understand or are scared of. The world is no longer one big p***s party people, let the estrogen in.

Awesome, thanks Tina.

Now, what evidence do you have to support that notion?

I know you’re busy, and don’t expect an answer from you, but I appreciate your editor’s response.

(Response from Tina: I will attempt to address this issue over the weekend on Post Scripts if you care to join in that discussion again on another thread.)

I would like to hear from others that believe as you do, though.

I LOVE this! This should be required reading in high school classes. Introduction to conservatism. When a true dyed-in-the-wool conservative speaks from the heart, this is what we get: bigotry, ignorance, hatred masked as “logic”. If they would speak from the heart more often instead of using code words like “states rights” (in place of state-sponsored bigotry), we’d have a much clearer picture of the moral state of America.

Tina responds: The same could be said for liberals/progressives “speaking from the heart”…or have you not bothered to read some of the left of center comments posted here?

Hmmmmm. I have two big topics to say real quick.

A.) EVERYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM, with what was said, need to read, re-read, maybe even read a THIRD time, to truly grasp what was being said. Someone before me mentioned the fact that what OneVike was trying to advocate using rational logical thought, and not emotional decision making. Take it out of the context of women, and I bet noone would complain, wait.. they would, because people always have to try and find a way to complain about well written, and logical writings.

B.) If you absolutely have a problem with something a person says… the best way to fight back, is with using facts to prove them wrong. Going on about YOUR emotional feelings does not help your claim, because in a good debate, you would die miserably, because your not using a fact in the bunch to prove anything. Facts only should win, no the heartstrings.

Okay, maybe I have more to rant about then I thought, but I have awaited a moment to see a person finally (that I liked how he said it) say what needs to be said, about LOGICAL thought. Think logically, I beg any of you to do that. I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an Anarchist. I personally find that big government may su*k, but sometimes it is a steadfast one opinioned rule, that keeps a people going. (If you think I advocate Monarchy at this moment… you would be right. America did NOT leave Britain because of a King, and for a time the fight amongst the forefathers was whether to make it a Monarchy or not. Given the global economy, if we left Britain NOW.. we would never leave it, because we would have a say in all things thanks to global commerce, and technology.)

Wow… That was more than I was hoping for, for advocating a non Two party system, as much as a system of government that stayed with ONE viewpoint, ONE goal. (Anyone notice how much it suc*s once a new president gets in Office? Its because they are now trying to overturn all the work done by the previous man…. NO WONDER WERE BLEEPED!!!!)

OH… and for facts in my argument, do historical reading to prove me wrong if you like, you wont.

And all those who snarl at a man for voicing their opinions…. FREEDOM OF SPEECH… dont pi** and moan because someone has a different thought about anything. I guarantee if all you did was got pi**y because someone believes differently that you would NEVER get anywhere.

I do not pi** and moan. I say what is fact, and therefore it is more superior than anyone who says anything out of emotion. Hint word there.. EMOTION. Anyone who got pi**y over what one person had to say, is truly talking through emotion and not through in any way a logical understanding.

I truly wish we could have a Logical President and not one who.. if you watch closely, and look at what is happening thus far, is looking more and more socialist in appearance, (look up the whole GM fiasco if you dont believe me.)

Bleeped as far as the eye can see///the editor

Wow Steve K, way not to generalize (where’s the sarcasm logo?). I’m glad I did not grow up in the town you did since you poted,

“So it is now considered a good thing that most men are pedophiles and rape children?”

Sounds like you came from a sick town because no man ever touched me as a child. By the way, what about that sick women who drowned her 6 kids in the bathtub and said the “devil made me do it.” Assuming, based on your posts, your an atheist (nothing wrong with that) that person’s excuse sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it. There have been many cases where moms have severly abused their children (or turn their heads when their husbands do it). It’s not just men.

Did anyone notice that 6th comment from the top, the one saying “I am a woman and I totally agree with you”. It says it was posted by ‘Ron’ ?

Editor replies…yes, they have. Perhaps it’s a Rhonda…or short for Ronda? I’m just sayin….

Wow, talk about retard.

The America you grew up in was made possible by Womens Suffrage and by the hard work of women in all kinds of endeavors. To imagine that America would be something better without it is idiotic. You imply that you are being the reasonable and logical one, but you are sweeping away 100 years of economic, political and social growth as though there was nothing of value there. How stupid and irrational can you be? I have never met a woman as stupid or emotionally corrupt as yourself.

This is the funniest article I’ve ever read.

Ultimately, this just proves the further point that’s always been there:

Conservatism is based out of fear.

Fear of the Russians, Fear of them taking away their guns, fear of the devil, fear of the foreigners, fear of their own bodies.

Is anyone going to be smart enough to realize how stupid they sound when they generalize? i.e. all democrats or all republicans are stupid because… or all men are bad and all women are stupid because… C’mon people.

I can’t remember who posted it, but they were a genius by pointing out how retarded we are when we try to blame every crisis on one scapegoat. Do people really think they are more intelligent or better because they can point out all the mistakes the other party made while at the same time ignoring all the good things that party has done, and then deny all the mistakes their own party made? Then, that same person goes on believing only his or her views are correct and calls anyone who thinks different closed minded. I love how these people are so oblivious to someone else’s view, yet get so upset when another person attacks their own.

Get it through you’re head people, not ALL republicans are dishonest and greedy, not ALL democrats are so rightous and have halos floating above them. More importantly not ALL republicans are rich, and not ALL democrats are worse off. Look at George Soros, one of the richest, greatest, and weathiest investors of all time yet he is very left, and I, who am a little more right of moderate, agree with many things he says.

You do realize that, before the 19th.. laws like the female age of consent being 7 YEARS OLD were voted in by men.. right?

Editors note: Please supply evidence or we must assume its a lie because no such law existed in America. What happened in Borneo in 1263 is not relevant to anything in our time.

ROFLMAO! Thank you for the hilarious article!
I will be chuckling over this all evening..

Everything in this opinion piece is completely wrong. Period.

As a democrat, this grinds only somewhat, because there is a truth to the article. However, there are a lot of problems that didn’t just start with the 19th Amendment. If anything, the problem begins with the same class of people in power. Truthfully, the rich being in power is somewhat of a good thing, however they always get greedy, and revolution happens. Revolution has happened in every single world power there ever was – America has just not hit that point yet. I don’t think the answer is to worry about people voting with their hearts. That’s a political tactic, and it would happen even if women were not allowed to vote. The problem isn’t even idiots at the voting booth. The problem is idiots RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

An IQ test should be mandatory for any public office. I would rather vote in a smart person than someone I “felt” for. And for whoever said that Sarah Palin would be one of those people (close to the top of comments), if there was an IQ test Palin wouldn’t even come close. I’m talking at least 3 digit IQ to begin the application process to run! If you are worried about being analytical and logical, let’s put smart people into office, instead of posers who act like they know what they are doing (this includes both Palin and Obama this time).

I really hope this is epic trollage

you sir, are the wingiest of the wingnuts.

your friends,

tales from the counter podcast

http://www.talesfromthecounter.com

I’d rather take advice from someone who can spell his idol’s name right. You’ve made an excellent strike into your “men are logical” argument.

Where to begin… I am glad this article brought up the “hundreds of emotional laws” and made examples of two.

I am a woman, I better take a midol or call up my knitting group before I let this ruin my already overly emotional day.

I think it is interesting that you say only because of women people are starting to care about global warming. Could you please explain to me how it is not logical to protect the future of our planet? How it is not logical to secure a future for our children’s children, oh there I go getting all maternal even though I am twenty one and have no children. It is all that hard science weighing me down and forcing me to think that way. If people that wanted to help the planet thought purely with emotion they would only think about what benefited them now and say screw the future.

I have a father who is not so ignorant he doesn’t realize all the good my mother brings to his life. They make decisions together. Oh and my dad cared just as much about me wearing my helmet. Men and women live in this world, so men AND women need to see that is becomes the best world it can be.

I don’t think I am above men, but I will be damned if I live in a world where they think they are above me.

Am I feeling super emotional about this… no. I have actually been laughing and reciting the comments to friends near me. Surprising I have any friends left I have so many emotional outbursts.

You are mad because you are republicans and you have evidence suggesting that if women didn’t vote you would get your way. This puts you on the level of a spoiled child who just realized if his sister got nothing he would get everything.

What an idiot you are. You speak of Ronald Reagan and logic, and in the same sentence you speak of “evil.” Base to crazy guy: “evil” is a term of emotion, not logic. In fact, your whole rant is the same emotionalism that you decry as originating with women. What a crock!

Just a thought, but it was (and is) male logic that that makes institutions like slavery, racial oppression, and strict caste systems, just to name a few, the norm. I suppose these ideals will be explained away as extremist, much the way I explain away your article as an extremist view.
My illogical female brain looks at decades of research on human evolution (am I even allowed to say that word on a republican blogspot?), and it shows we are different for a reason. We need each other to exist. Logic is useless without compassion and empathy.

Lulz @…well, actually, pretty much this whole thing. In particular (at least, in particular for the moment) the idea that logic and sense has always been the domain of men, much less Republicans. It rather seems like the elephant crew is the party of delusions these days. ^^

Seriously, though, the women who’re agreeing with this article need to get off the computer so their redneck husbands can finish beating them up before they go to bed. People are people are people; how we handle information and base our decisions isn’t exclusive to one race or one gender to any extent. The sooner certain people (that’s you, slugger) stop pretending that this is true, the sooner we move forward even more as a nation.

Addendum: consider the vast, vast majority of Popes and European monarchies and the effects those have had on the world before suggesting that men in charge=RAWSOME and women with a voice=boohiss.

Meg’s comments have been deleted because Meg has a potty mouth. Act like a baby – get treated like a baby.

This article is right on.

Women are statistically less politically knowledgable than men.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/7/9/9/p67995_index.html

Studies have shown that the size of government as a percentage of GDP began growing when women got the right to vote.

I would just like to make a few comments regarding WWII/Hitler. As a history major who has taken courses specifically on Hitler, the Holocaust, WWII and Germany [separate courses], I would like to offer my two cents.
1. Many historians consider WWII as “Hitler’s War” for a reason. Hitler was directly responsible for the start of WWII when he chose to negate a non-aggression pact with Poland. Unlike Europe preceding WWI, tensions were not building between countries in the years prior to the Second World War. Countries worldwide were suffering form the depression, and no one had desire to get into another war so soon after the “war to end all wars.” Hitler deliberately attacked outside his country because he wanted to purify the German race and needed land to do so.
2. Hitler was not voted into office. He didn’t forcefully take the power. He was GIVEN the power. President Hindenburg (Germany’s second president) appointed him chancellor. Did Hitler take advantage of Hindenburg’s death and name himself president? Yes, but initially he was appointed to office.
3. Hitler actually WAS rejected from art school–the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna–twice. He then aspired to be an architect but lacked the proper training to attend architectural school. Totally not important, but I felt like sharing. [And I’ve read a biography on Hitler so I like to think I know what I’m talking about]

As a student of political science with some knowledge of campaigns/elections, I can say that while it’s true that women frequently vote with their emotions, men do the same thing.

For example, on the issue of Iran, many men (much more so than women) support a full and direct military confrontation. Their “emotions” of belligerence/anger are the cause, and nearly anyone with any understanding of military science, international relations, history, or reality in general could actually “logically” support such a position.

So, the real issue isn’t emotions, but education. Politicians will always pander to the masses (regardless of gender), because that’s how democracy works.

-Valikor

Huh. If OneVike is right, then all Republican politicians need to do to win more often is to secure the votes of a bunch of illogical, emotionally-driven females. Yet somehow, they seem to have trouble doing this rather simple-sounding task. Why? Are these politicians stupid? Are they crazy? Maybe the fact that they can’t seem to accomplish this task is an indication that they deserve to lose. It seems like smart politicians would have figured this out by now… Or maybe, they don’t really want to win after all…

Great April fools joke! A little early… but seriously… i couldn’t stop laughing at how ironic this was.

Your article has an extremely interesting correlation, however, you have neglected to give some sort of logical solution to the problem. It seems as if you have fallen victim to the disease, as you suggest, that the remainder of America is afflicted by.

“I’ve noticed a lot of the early supporters, especially the “women,” of this argument haven’t shown up in a while. I’d like to hear logical responses to many of the criticisms that have been thrown out in the past couple of hours.”

I’m not a woman, and I’ll be happy to address any criticisms brought up, but scrolling through these comments I see zero that aren’t absolutely ridiculous. Could you specify exactly which points you’d like an answer to?

Bleeped for taxing my tired eyes with drivel…the editor.

Bye for now.

Ditto

Pardon me, I almost choked on my drink…

I posted your article and we (the women at the top) are enjoying ourselves at your expense. By the way, you have successfully converted about 350 women tonight from liberal conservatism to conservative liberalism. Way to be.

Oh, and by the way? Ronald Reagan actually liked women. He wasn’t suppressing his manhood and choking on his male identity the way the author of this article seems to be – closet gay? Just asking! No offense.

Thanks for the laughs!

Editors note: Please – no gay bashing, that is unacceptable conduct.

Thank god for women votes and there democratic votes. If not for them we would have more gay, lying republican’s in government.

Editors note: Gay bashing is not acceptable Tom.

Lol, but bashing women is acceptable. Hypocritical much?

Editor: The author is not “bashing women”, but he is offering up a theory for your consideration.

This article is a good example of why it’s impossible to parody right-wingers, especially ones who ask their critics if they accept Jesus. Will the last sane Republican please turn out the light and shut the door when you leave the Party.

You’re adorable. I hope you’re comfortable in your delusions. Good luck ever getting respect from a decent woman. I certainly hope you’re not married, the poor woman you must have dooped.

I hate to say it, because I am female… but I agree with this 100%.

Thank god for women votes and there democratic votes. If not for them we would have more gay, lying republican’s in government.

Editors note: Gay bashing is not acceptable Tom..

Right on, boys! Tell you what, why don’t you figure out a way to procreate without us, and we’ll leave you to your “logical way of governing.” Because it certainly progressed well for centuries, what with all the violence, bloodshed and continual holding down of various members of society.

WWII was certainly the worst war humanity has seen… but considering its direct cause was WWI… which came BEFORE women could vote… well, I’m kind of lost on how that argument stands up, actually.

Signed a very emotional woman at a top state of anger.

Really? REALLY?

Of course, I don’t know what is more frightening- the fact that someone posted this, or the number of people who support it.

For all your drivel about how emotion makes everything horrible and is killing AMERICA (*insert national anthem, fluttering flag, soaring eagle, amber waves of grain, etc., etc.*) and intellect alone saves us all, a quick comment:

Doesn’t society consider the person who BALANCES their intellectual and emotive tendancies the most successful? That’s why giving women the vote, who are human and thus deserve their inalienable human rights, is what makes AMERICA (*national etc., etc.*) so successful. We can bring all of our intellects together with our emotions, and work at finding a balance.

Of course, progress is scary. But don’t worry… Mommy can hold your hand 😉

I am a man and I would have to say that you disgust me. Or is disgust too emotional and feminine for you?

Here’s a hint. We’re *all* emotional and we are all ruled at least to some extent by our emotions. That’s what being human is.

Also, spend at least ten minutes on wikipedia before you make ridiculous untrue statements about history. WWII was *far* from the largest war in history, and it’s very hard to take seriously someone who can’t even get their basic facts right.

Die in a fire (is that masculine enough?)

Editors note: Not masculine at all, rather juvenile of you.

I have a question. You claim that Reagan was the last ‘reasonable’ President . . . but didn’t his election take place directly AFTER the feminist movement? So in that case, wouldn’t the women have had MORE power and control over the election? Ergo, the women played a large part in electing your so-called ‘logical’ leader. At any rate, you have no historical facts or empirical data whatsoever to back up your claims, other than ‘a story you once read’, which means that this essay itself isn’t based on manly logic as it is on anger, which happens to be a feminine emotion. Ironic, isn’t it?

The irony in so much of this is that conservatives have made an art of reducing every issue to a very black and white, simplistic sound bite designed specifically to engender a visceral response.

Note how the last election was a “Marxist revolution”. Logical word choice? It wasn’t “able to happen because emotions trumped logic”. But rather because the appeals like that to emotion failed to carry the electorate.

And if women are better able to stand up to, or less likely to engage in this sort of emotional manipulation, more power to them.

Once you get an education your views will change.

“I hate to say it, because I am female… but I agree with this 100%. ”

Thank you Stacy.

Women generally are preoccupied with subjects other than politics, and so often vote based on ignorance.

In fact studies show that men have significantly higher levels of political knowledge than women, and incidentally vote for smaller more limited government.

Does anyone else find it ironic that OneVike’s article is very emotional and that all of the conclusions appear to be drawn illogically?

The article sets out to convince us that irrational thought has had a destructive influence on society. But by the end it is clear that the author does not understand his subject matter.

Distortions of history and science, the confusion of correlation and causation, and the misrepresenting of counterarguments without adequately addressing them, are rhetorical tricks not methods for drawing reasonable conclusions.

You cannot be taken seriously if you try to speak with authority about rationality while at the same time showing us that you don’t even know what rationality is or how to use it.

I’m sure there are many other ways to point out the flaws of this article, but I find this one the most interesting because the conclusion is that you have written an article about how much you are angry at yourself.

Get a journal!

You yourself, sir, seem to be ruled by emotion, and that emotion is fear.

Spouting off about “marxists” like you’re some gun-toting, cross-waving ‘nam vet who is completely paranoid about the scary communists.

Funny, isn’t it, that this whole economic mess your country has gotten the world into was mainly caused by your brand of capitalism, which has decayed past being the old “American Dream” and is now something more of “if you’ve got a credit card, it’s yours- don’t worry if you can actually pay for it later”. Right-wing capitalism scares me.

One last thing: please, before you go and make it sound like you’re this intellectual who values knowledge, facts and logic over emotion, please please Please PLEASE watch your grammar. It’s hard to take you seriously when you can’t tell the difference between “then” and “than”!!

This is from you, “politicians who think more with their hearts THEN(!) with their brains.” Sounds like you have trouble thinking with your brain as well. Unless in that sentence you meant that politicians think with their hearts first, and afterwards think with their brains (then why is that “more” there?).

It should be realized that women’s suffrage was the culmination of the Progressive era that began at the end of the 19th century, and of which socialist ideas like destroying monopolies, ensuring fair wages and safe work environments, conservation, food safety standards, the income tax, democratization of senatorial elections, mandatory public education, and government intervention in general were a part.

The evolution of a social conscience in response to industrialization and laissez-faire capitalism was the natural result of the abuses of those institutions as well as a recognition of the common humanity of all people.

That the humanist Progressive social conscience should require equal voting rights for people deemed equally intellectually capable should be unsurprising. These same ideals would eventually lead to the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

In response to the Great Depression, and with view of creating a modern nation, Progressivism led to things like Child Labor laws, free and mandatory primary and secondary education, large government expenditures on public works, and the GI bill. This huge increase in education combined with large government infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System would be the economic engine that fueled the post-war boom in the American economy.

That as a post-industrial nation America should again be turning to new Progressive ideas like universal post-secondary education, new conservation in the form of anti-global warming legislation, implementation of universal healthcare, equal rights for homosexuals, and renewal and expansion of infrastructure should be unsurprising. As Progressivism was in the 20th century a response to inustrialized laissez-faire and a recognition of our common humanity, it will in the 21st century be a response to the post-industrial version of that inherently polarizing and corrupt system and a reaffirmation of our social conscience.

Most of the European countries have a more socialistic government structure than the USA. Would the writer then suggest the Europeans are even more feminist than the USA?

There are a number of arguments that have been posted above me debunking your “theory” or calling you out on your lack of substantial evidence, none of which have been replied to. Let’s say, for the sake of argument you are right. Women voters pass “emotional” laws that are ruining the country. The most horrific example you can give are helmet laws? Helmet laws are the decline of the American Empire? Please point out the logic in that.

This subject has been touched on before, but it warrants another take. I would love to see you elaborate more on that WWII reference and how it cannot be blamed on men.

Another point that there has been no response; you and the almighty editor of this page claim that you are not advocating the repeal of the 19th, yet your words imply otherwise. To paraphrase you are lamenting the loss of the God given right for men to rule over this nation. Perhaps a better choice of words next time?

This brings up yet another fallacy in your entire thesis by bringing religion into the equation. Western religion in particular is dictated by faith, which by its very definition is an illogical concept. “A firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” (Merriam-Webster)

To all the women out there who agree with the writer of this blog, you really think that your right to vote is literally the root of everything that is wrong in this country? Please elaborate and provide more than an anecdotal tale from your childhood about your father berating women to daughter.

You say that America is ending and its ruin is without recourse. You proclaimed that you don’t want to repeal the 19th and you offer no solutions. This whining and this is you being emotional. So if America is broken without the chance of being fixed why did you write this? For a pat on the back? To inform the public so they get upset? TO INCITE EMOTION? You have to see how hypocritical you are, or at least one would hope.

I know there is a lot to filter out on this comment page, but before you go lamenting about how everyone who disagrees with you isn’t posting facts or is not debating logically respond to me. I implore you as your responses to the points I made would be most interesting.

Thank you for your time,
Roger

WE ARD USING SCIENECEEE LISTEEEN TO MEE TELL YOU!!!

Hah, comedy genius, nice fakepost.

Some proofreading needs to be done before this article is posted in The Onion. Then/than, to/too, and several other third grade level things need addressing.

It’s as if some people never have taken two steps out their front door.

I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU!!
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! WOMEN HAVE GONE THRU SO MUCH TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND HAVE AS MANY EQUAL RIGHTS AS ANY MAN, BUT YOU’RE SAYING WE WERE STUPID FOR GIVING IT TO THEM AND THAT IT’S KILLING AMERICA!! I’M SORRY BUT I THINK YOU’RE KILLING AMERICA!!!

Wow, great April Fools prank.

You seem to have caught hundreds in it. I am impressed. Way to go Post Scripts! I can’t think of a better prank in the cyber world.

Mark

“Editor: The author is not “bashing women”, but he is offering up a theory for your consideration.”

The entire premise of this “theory” is that women are so incapable of using logic that allowing them to vote has ruined America. Can you please explain to me how that is not bashing?

Editor: Bashing is more a personal definition I suppose. But, for me, saying something like, “Go F— yourself, get cancer and die, you’re fag—, you’re AH, ” – that is bashing for the sake of bashing. Saying, I think there is a fundamental physical difference between the way men think and the way women think and here’s my observations based upon historical events…” is probably not bashing, even thought it may not be popular and it may even be offensive to some, there’s quantum leap between the former and the later.

“This article is right on.

Women are statistically less politically knowledgable than men.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/7/9/9/p67995_index.html

Studies have shown that the size of government as a percentage of GDP began growing when women got the right to vote.”

From the study:

“While scholars have examined the gender gap in political knowledge, there is still no satisfactory answer as to why men know more about politics than women.” -So your article does not attribute it to characteristics of men or women

“Gidengil et al. argue that perhaps the appropriate question is not “Why do women not know as much as men?”, but rather “Why are men so willing to express opinions?”… Gidengil et al. argue that what should be examined is the quality of the opinions given, suggesting that women may be more likely to answer “don’t know” to survey questions, but when women do give answers they are more likely to be correct and their opinions are more likely to be well informed. They go on to argue that men may be masking a lack of political opinions by being so willing to express opinion while women, though more likely to answer “don’t know”, do not feel pressure to answer unless they are ready to express well informed opinions. Mondak (1999, 2001) reinforces this view in his research on political knowledge. He examines how political knowledge is measured and suggests that incorrect and “don’t know” answers should not be grouped together because they imply very different processes.” – Ah a moment of scientific clarity.

“In sum, the literature on political knowledge and engagement points to a number of possible explanations for the gender gap in political knowledge. Some scholars see gender-based knowledge differences as at least partly an artifact of methodology, particularly in terms of how survey instruments measure political knowledge, as well as how incorrect and “don’t know” responses are to be interpreted.”- Certainly not conclusive evidence that women are inferior to men, thus should not be voting or in charge.

Perhaps do some reading. That usually helps.

Oh yeah, and one of the biggest expansion of government spending in the 20th century award goes to….. Ronald Reagan… “Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent”- Source: Heritage Foundation

I wonder if men or women voted for Reagan… Interesting…

All empires rise and fall. Deal with it.

I guess it’s just too bad for you guys that you like that one thing so much. We have it, you want it, therefore, we require you to treat us with some modicum of respect before we allow you some.

And you HATE that! You also hate that we have proven our ability to do so many MANLY tasks. You want us to worship you, and when we make it clear you are not a god, you become angry at our audacity! That is not going to get you any closer to that precious honey you sooo desire.

Also, you are flawed in your ideas about the differences in the way men and women think. It is not logically versus emotionally. (If you think men don’t think emotionally, than you must have never heard of a man whose nether regions led him into trouble).

Anyway, researchers, Ah, I forgot, science is full of it unless it proves what you want to hear. I’ll tell you anyway, researchers have shown that men and women generally reach the same conclusions, they simply go about it via different brain circuits. And as I remember it, the researchers didn’t say anything about using emotional circuits.

@Mindful

Big problem with your first argument. If you think that this article is simply about voting logically (which I think we all think would be a good thing), then why is it entitled “Women’s Right to Vote, the Beginning of the End for America?”

I think that the argument is clearly about women voting, not people voting illogically. So, if you read, and reread the title, you might get an idea of what the author is really talking about.

Matt…great information, thanks.

Revenues also increased significantly under Reagan and if the Democrat controlled Congress had kept their promises to Reagan that growth wouldn’t have been so great.

I’m pretty sure both men and women voted for Reagan…twice.

Paul:

“I’m not a woman, and I’ll be happy to address any criticisms brought up, but scrolling through these comments I see zero that aren’t absolutely ridiculous. Could you specify exactly which points you’d like an answer to?”

You’re being dishonest. There have been literally hundreds of posts here pointing out the lack of logic in this article, from the real causes of WWII, to the hypocrisy of conservatives lecturing about emotion when they are the religious party, to the logical reasons for the global warming concern and child safety laws, and most importantly, the fact that men are just as emotional as women, but they tend to act these emotions out in more violent and aggressive ways. And that’s just a few of the problems that have been pointed out in a logical and fact-based manner. Now please don’t try to waste other people’s time by making them summarize the arguments on this comment thread for you. You’ve read the comments, now respond to them.

Hey OneVike,

This is Leandra from Digg. Unfortunately it wouldn’t let me reply to your entry there, so I figured I’d do it here.

“That is the crux of my whole point was not that I think we should change what is in place. But that we have gone from a logical thinking electorate to an emotionally driven one. If everyone one just stepped back out side their little comfort zone and looked at the world from a 1920’s perspective, and then decided if we could change all this idiocy by not passing the 19th amendment then should we, would we?”

Just to debate your point (because I do love a good debate), I believe the 19th amendment was NOT the turning point starting our decline. Here’s my logic on that:

You said in your article, “From that day forward, men have been vying for the emotional vote of the women,” when by voting history, that is not the case. They were vying for the emotional vote of men/the people/whomever even before that. Just look back one amendment at the 18th. If we did step back and look from a 1920 perspective, we would find ourselves in the midst of prohibition with congress playing nanny against the “evils of alcohol”. Women could not even vote, yet the idiocy had already begun.

So when did congress become so emotional? For that I think we need to turn the clock back even further. Going back one amendment again, I would argue it started with the 17th amendment. It used to be that senators were appointed by a state’s legislature. The people could vote for their reps, but there was that buffer for how senators were chosen. The 17th amendment changed all that. So now senators too were elected by the people. With the entirety of congress picked by the popular vote, is there any wonder why it would sway and flop along with the emotions of the populace?

I would argue that people are emotional by nature, and our founding fathers knew this. They tried to create a balance allowing the people to be heard without falling into mob mentality. They did this by creating the electoral college for the president, having lifelong appointments for supreme justices, and appointment of senators by state legislatures. Over time we are eroding those buffers to be closer to a direct democracy, for all its benefits and faults. And one of those faults may be pure human nature. A democracy is only as strong as its constituents.

I would love to continue the debate further with you. I have attached my email to this comment if you’re so inclined. Best of luck to you, and I look forward to your future articles. They’re interesting food for thought. 🙂

It was primarily the votes of German working and middle-class women that put the Nazis into power:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878178

German Women and the Triumph of Hitler, by Richard J. Evans © 1976

Even if you believe that this is true, so what? If this is what most of the country wants (the majority) then so-be-it. You can’t just take away someone’s vote because it isn’t what you want.

I’m so sick of ignorant people like you saying Obama is Marxist or an advocate of socialism without knowing a Xxx XXXX bit what they’re talking about.

Please get f—–. Seriously.

Editor’s note: When people run out of something intelligent to say, they should just stop right there and let it go. Using the F bomb or expletives on a family site is incredibly ignorant and rude. Change your screen name, because you certainly don’t have one.

To all who contributed;
by
OneVike

When I wrote this article, I wrote it to show how we have gone from a logical thinking electorate to an emotionally driven one. I realize and fully anticipated a big backlash, and I must say I have not been disappointed. I also am not surprised by the number of people who seem to have nothing better then to take points of my opinion out of context. We do after all live in an emotionally charged society as I alluded to in my article.

If everyone one could just step back out side their little comfort zone and look at the world from a 1920’s perspective. Then you could see the many changes in our country that I do not believe is good for a healthy society. It is my humble opinion that when one takes the evidence in, you cannot help but wonder if Americans living in 1920, would have, or should have done otherwise?

Unfortunately people really have a hard time stepping back in time with the idea of wondering what if I did not have, do, or allow something that I now must live with, whether it is good or bad. It is a difficult thing for us humans to do. God tells us all the time “Do not” or else we will suffer the consequences. Then we do what He told us not to do and must forever live with the results of our decisions.

Many times the consequences of our decisions come with bad things that actually have what we might think are good side effects. Do we ever consider that if we went back and changed what we did that we would also lose that good side effect. Thus it is that good side effect that we dearly hold onto and fight anyone who try’s to take it from us.

I am not surprised that women overwhelmingly do not want to even consider the idea of never having had the right to vote. The more conservative ones argue more against the idea that the side effects of the 19th has contributed to most of the socialism in America. While it is obvious that the more liberal women believe this country is heading in a good direction, and they credit that success to the their right to vote. To them I say OK, then be proud of the changes you made, and many I know are. However you make my point as to how I see this country being right now as a result of the 19th amendment. Most of what you are so proud of, I see as having been detrimental to this country.

Now I will admit that there has been many positive benefits related to women having the right to vote. However, when I way the pro’s and con’s I see it weighted to the negative. That is why I do not think the 19th amendment was good for America? I also think changing the voting age to 18 was bad, and now we have politicians in San Francisco who have stated they think we should give 14 year old’s the right to vote. I have news for you, BAD IDEA!

In closing, I must say that I have read many good arguments for and against my opinion and I have also begun some personal dialog with some of those who posted and made logical levelheaded points for and against my article. I look forward to future discussions here about the many things that flow though the gray matter of my head.

P.S.
For those who took umbrage with my grammar or spelling, I will in the future be extra careful before I hit the enter button.

Again thanks to all who contributed.

OneVike

“It was primarily the votes of German working and middle-class women that put the Nazis into power:

Help me out here. Are saying that women are to blame for the atrocities of Hitler? Because it sure seems that way.

So. If you don’t mind, I’m going to run down your case very quickly. So you say that inserting emotions into a debate is a bad idea. But logic is made up of emotions. We feel revulsion at the thought of some muredering a child, therefore, it is bad. Emotion. We fear danger therefore we launch a preemtive attack against Iraq. Emotion. People do not function purely off of logic. Furthermore, despite what you may think, both men and women have chemicals in their brains that cause emotions. The only difference that might exist is that women are more open with their emotions that men are. However, that doesn’t make a man any less emotional. Since you cannot see inside a person’s head and tell exactly what they are feeling, it is hard to say that a man might be feeling less emotional than a woman.

“Why else would California have a law on the books that requires all persons under 18 years of age to wear a helmet while operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard. Or while wearing in-line or roller skates, or while riding upon a non motorized scooter or skateboard as a passenger?”

Just a thought, and it might be crazy, but that could have been done for safety’s sake. A helmet acts as a cushion between someone’s skull and the ground. People, especially beginners, can and do fall of of skateboards while moving at considerable speed. That is not emotion; that is logic.

Thidly, you mentioned people doing the unthinkable and worrying about global warming. Who the hell really cares that polar bears can swim 100 miles? This is about humans. With all the ice caps melting, the sea levels will rise causing floods. Also, all the cold water will make the climate itself colder and lead to another ice age. Excuse us for caring about the future of the human race.

I didn’t get to cover this as much as I would have liked to. So sorry.

Matt:

“Gidengil et al. argue that perhaps the appropriate question is not “Why do women not know as much as men?”, but rather “Why are men so willing to express opinions?”

THIS. This times a thousand.

Tina, thanks for your clarification on bashing, but you are making the argument in this article seem more tame than it actually is. Of course saying “I think there is a fundamental physical difference between the way men think and the way women think and here’s my observations based upon historical events…” cannot be construed as bashing. However, when the conclusion reached by this argument is that half the human race should not have equal rights…well, maybe it’s not bashing, but it’s certainly derogatory, prejudiced, and anti-democratic, and it seems to me that you keep dodging that fact.

Thank you. I am glad this world still has people like you. Like me. I learned about marxism in 6th grade, I think. But it’s stuck with me my whole life. I learned about the start, their goals, russia and the czars, how they overpowered the czars. I remember, my teacher would always say “History repeats itself”. It’s true. We know the signs, and we will learn from history what to do, or what not to.

Marxists want equality for everyone. They also want no religion. But God didn’t make women and men equally, thats not what marxists want. They want to lower our morals. Two guys want to get married? Sure! Unwed mothers? Don’t worry, it’s OK! They want us to throw out religion completely and it sickens me.

But to make men and women equal? Women are a very important part of life and the world, but are certainly not equal to men. People had it right before Karl Marxx was born. Men worked for their family, provided. Women took care of the children, cooked, cleaned. They weren’t meant to be firemen, or police officers. Men are stronger. Thats how it is. No one can argue, that’s how God created us. Giving them equal rights is only helping out marxists.

Pfft. I’m a woman who votes Democratic exclusively. And since I do the candidate and issues research in the house, I mark up my Democratic husband’s sample ballot too, so we both vote the same way.

Just goes to show what tripe this article is.

Another note about Hitler–the Nazis didn’t even have a majority vote at the time Hitler was APPOINTED into office, so who actually did the voting for them is irrelevant. Besides, Hitler manipulated the voting [ie barring certain political parties from being allowed to run], so there were very few choices besides voting “Nazi” anyway. I’m not saying that women didn’t vote for the Nazis, I’m just saying that the Nazis did not have a majority vote, and Hitler’s appointment brought him above voting anyway.

To Onevike in response to your newly posted comment.

There are so many different tangents that are ripe for debate in your essay and subsequent response. I find it ironic that you keep mentioning God in your writings denoting emotion as bad thing. Religion is the most illogical thing ever created by man. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. The whole concept of faith is as far away as you can get from cold analytical thinking as you can get. You want to have your life dictated by rules formulated by something that intentionally cannot be proven exists. Slip off those comfy slippers stitched together by your faith and wear the shoes of a person infused with the logic that you so worship. If you can look at the country from the 1920’s perspective and visualize a veritable eden of America then this should be relatively easy for you. Religion and logic cannot and do not co-exist peacefully.

I can only assume you are a white male from your political stance and your words. Since you seem to be drawn to the hypothetical imagine yourself as a black man (or woman) living in the 1920’s or imagine the present in which there was no civil rights movement (driven by emotion). If the 1920’s standard applied today almost 75% of Americans (women, minorities) would have no voice in their government. Whether or not this would be your preference, (although I would be almost afraid of your answer) is not the question. With only white males being able to vote, how could America ever be considered the land of the free? Perhaps your ideals would be best suited to an apartheid South Africa?

You rail against Socialism and you vote Republican to try can get your voice heard and steer the country towards. Imagine not being able to because you were born a women or black. Would you be able to find justice in that? Would you honestly be able to look in mirror and say to yourself, “My opinions will lead this country to ruin, thank god I can’t vote.” I doubt you would, more likely you would be outraged and driven by emotion to change the status quo.

Thanks for reading,
Roger

You’re kidding, right?

Jack & Tina,

Why so many replies to this post compared to others on Post Scripts?
Who are all these people?
Thanks.

Mark

Are you kidding me?!?!
You are so stupid!
Women have feelings too, and YES, women can be logical and think things through before acting! Not ALL women think with their hearts, but some do, and THAT IS NOT A BAD THING EITHER!
This article is a complete waste of space on the internet and only shows how close-minded and idiotic a person can be!!!!

Are we to forget that President Regan was elected in 80 and 84 because of the moral majority, a christian coalition group that preaches the idea of blind faith, one of the strongest EMOTIONAL attachments that any human can have?

“I also am not surprised by the number of people who seem to have nothing better then to take points of my opinion out of context.”

Can you name a few examples, please? Or are you still allergic to evidence?

Also, I know you can’t directly respond to every reasoned, logical comment on this thread…but maybe one or two? I’d still like to know what you think about the evidence that has been pointed out regarding how men are more prone to using violence to express emotion, which is completely illogical, or the lack of logic that it takes to be religious, or the many points that have refuted your WWII example…

“That is why I do not think the 19th amendment was good for America? ”

Um…I don’t know, is it?

The thing is, OneVike, I can sort of see your points about the negative consequences of giving women the right to vote. Almost every good law has some sort of unintended negative consequence for someone. I don’t agree with most of the evidence, and it’s poorly supported, but it’s the standard conservative complaints and I get it.

Where I totally cannot sympathize with you is in your conclusion. You truly believe that because of these consequences, women should be denied basic civil rights and a voice in our democracy. That is sick. No matter how many bad things have come about because of the 19th Amendment, to resolve that it would be better to violate the freedoms that this country is based on rather than deal with the consequences another way is sick, immoral, un-Christian, anti-American, misogynistic, and just plain wrong. NOTHING justifies taking freedom away. NOTHING.

This it total crap. Politicians have always marketed towards emotion. Having taken many history classes at college, and with common sense and logic, it is evident from any person’s statndpoint, MALE OR FEMALE, that politicians have played to emotions.

Not just women. Take a look at any election in the 19th century, before women were aloud to vote.

Politicians ran as “war heroes” just to appeal to the masses. This article is complete jargon and fully laughable while sustaining a message of ignorance.

Mark, this story was linked to another site and we are picking up internet surfers that have never been on our site before.