The only woman in this race is more conservative than 2/3 of the men, and a more effective saleswoman for conservatism in Canada than the remaining 1/3 (who ended up dead last as a result).
I have my doubts. Way back at the beginning, the Jacobins of the French Revolution hardly needed women to egg on their murderous antics, and were notoriously quite harsh toward the OG militant feminists (the 'revolutionary republican women') too.
You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
That shift gave degenerate organizations the ability to play husband against wife and guaranteed the collapse of the family structure. Now today we see the result. Virtually all "social justice" initiatives are started and led by bitter women.
Voting is an individual right. If you deny someone this right, you are essentially saying you know what is best for them, and that they should fall in line.
That's authoritarian bullshit that should never fly in a free society.
Voting is itself worthless if the enterprise does not exist to better the Nation.
Democracy is a failure precisely because of the idea of "voting as a right."
Does a 60IQ downie have the mental capacity to debate politics? No. Obviously not. Their vote is nothing but an extended vote of their handlers.
The same is true for women. Their vote should be tied to the vote of the family and the vote of the family is the responsibility of the husband.
By pushing for endless expansion of voting rights you're pushing for the endless degradation of the system of voting itself. Today it is no longer tied to family, no longer tied to land, and no longer tied to national origin. That's a mistake.
What you want is a fairy tale that doesn't exist. In reality your utopian desire is a fast-track to the dystopian hell we find ourselves in today.
Women should not be in politics.
Change my mind.
The only woman in this race is more conservative than 2/3 of the men, and a more effective saleswoman for conservatism in Canada than the remaining 1/3 (who ended up dead last as a result).
And?
Without women having the right to vote and interacting directly with the political process all men would be much more conservative in general.
We are being dragged to the left by the emotional tyranny of women.
I have my doubts. Way back at the beginning, the Jacobins of the French Revolution hardly needed women to egg on their murderous antics, and were notoriously quite harsh toward the OG militant feminists (the 'revolutionary republican women') too.
You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
Islam is right about women
Glow Harder
Giving women the right to vote was a mistake.
That shift gave degenerate organizations the ability to play husband against wife and guaranteed the collapse of the family structure. Now today we see the result. Virtually all "social justice" initiatives are started and led by bitter women.
Voting is an individual right. If you deny someone this right, you are essentially saying you know what is best for them, and that they should fall in line.
That's authoritarian bullshit that should never fly in a free society.
Voting is itself worthless if the enterprise does not exist to better the Nation.
Democracy is a failure precisely because of the idea of "voting as a right."
Does a 60IQ downie have the mental capacity to debate politics? No. Obviously not. Their vote is nothing but an extended vote of their handlers.
The same is true for women. Their vote should be tied to the vote of the family and the vote of the family is the responsibility of the husband.
By pushing for endless expansion of voting rights you're pushing for the endless degradation of the system of voting itself. Today it is no longer tied to family, no longer tied to land, and no longer tied to national origin. That's a mistake.
What you want is a fairy tale that doesn't exist. In reality your utopian desire is a fast-track to the dystopian hell we find ourselves in today.
Voting isn't a right in most parts of the world. At least not for men.
Simp
Fed
She's not gonna sleep with you.