No way. You vastly overestimate the marginal difference between men and women in voting preferences. You also vastly overestimate the actual effect of 'elections'.
The problem is that there is a kleptocratic ruling oligarchy that rules regardless of who is 'elected'. The oligarchy gets its way regardless.
You vastly underestimate the social rot that has taken place. I'd argue that you would get the same result as now under any political form: supposed democracy, oligarchy or autocracy, precisely because of this social rot.
Any regime operates under a series of constraints, which is its environment. There are no easy solutions, and you are deceiving yourself if you think there are. Franco defeated the socialist-liberal-communist alliance in Spain, and ruled with an iron fist for 40 years, but Spain today is just as rotten with feminism and wokeness as any other country in Europe - if not more so.
We have to change the tide of history. How to do that, I do not know. But blaming it all on women, or Jews, or blacks, or whoever, is not going to cut it. The problem is far broader than that.
The social rot that has taken place is rooted in biology, because social dynamics are rooted in evolutionary psychology.
I'm not "blaming it all on women" as you say, but you are wrong about the gender differences in voting preferences. I live in Canada, where every poll says exactly the same thing: If women didn't vote Justin Trudeau would never have been elected, and that same gendered voting pattern is present in every Western democracy to one extent or another.
I have just outlined in detail why I don't agree with TheImpossible1 about a gender-wide conspiracy of women trying to exterminate men. You don't need a conspiracy to explain the differences between how men and women conduct politics: you just need biology.
My point is: elections don't really matter that much. Imagine if O'Toole had been elected, with only men voting. First of all, most people who vote O'Toole will likely also be sick in the head. The elites are the same. Nothing would change. Secondly, can you not see that the problem is quite broad when a majority of the population, even if it's not the voting population, is completely whacked as to vote for an empty suit like Trudeau?
I don't mean that you shouldn't take away women's right to vote, though it's impossible to do that. If you did, you would just restore a previous status quo ante that had already collapsed. What makes you think that even if you managed to accolish what you want, we would not just retrace what happened previously?
It's complete fantasy. And we should be spending our time thinking of actual solutions, not non-solutions that would not accomplish our goals anyway.
No way. You vastly overestimate the marginal difference between men and women in voting preferences. You also vastly overestimate the actual effect of 'elections'.
The problem is that there is a kleptocratic ruling oligarchy that rules regardless of who is 'elected'. The oligarchy gets its way regardless.
You vastly underestimate the social rot that has taken place. I'd argue that you would get the same result as now under any political form: supposed democracy, oligarchy or autocracy, precisely because of this social rot.
Any regime operates under a series of constraints, which is its environment. There are no easy solutions, and you are deceiving yourself if you think there are. Franco defeated the socialist-liberal-communist alliance in Spain, and ruled with an iron fist for 40 years, but Spain today is just as rotten with feminism and wokeness as any other country in Europe - if not more so.
We have to change the tide of history. How to do that, I do not know. But blaming it all on women, or Jews, or blacks, or whoever, is not going to cut it. The problem is far broader than that.
The social rot that has taken place is rooted in biology, because social dynamics are rooted in evolutionary psychology.
I'm not "blaming it all on women" as you say, but you are wrong about the gender differences in voting preferences. I live in Canada, where every poll says exactly the same thing: If women didn't vote Justin Trudeau would never have been elected, and that same gendered voting pattern is present in every Western democracy to one extent or another.
I have just outlined in detail why I don't agree with TheImpossible1 about a gender-wide conspiracy of women trying to exterminate men. You don't need a conspiracy to explain the differences between how men and women conduct politics: you just need biology.
I know that you are a rational fellow.
My point is: elections don't really matter that much. Imagine if O'Toole had been elected, with only men voting. First of all, most people who vote O'Toole will likely also be sick in the head. The elites are the same. Nothing would change. Secondly, can you not see that the problem is quite broad when a majority of the population, even if it's not the voting population, is completely whacked as to vote for an empty suit like Trudeau?
I don't mean that you shouldn't take away women's right to vote, though it's impossible to do that. If you did, you would just restore a previous status quo ante that had already collapsed. What makes you think that even if you managed to accolish what you want, we would not just retrace what happened previously?
It's complete fantasy. And we should be spending our time thinking of actual solutions, not non-solutions that would not accomplish our goals anyway.
My thoughts exactly. The reason why we are seeing difference in voting patterns is do to manipulation by elites.
Women make the worst voters.