http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1A...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsKdEl0-...

Looks like most of you will have your heads explode at what she has to say.

Yeah, we've come a long way since Lucy.
Look around; "early nomad and gathering cultures" didn't build the modern world so many are alive to enjoy.
Before "women.... crept after their prey" humans were adding meat to their diet by scavenging from predators. There's no evidence that early female humans acted as predators.

Don't let anybody vote; declare me dictator for life.

"More than half of all "romantic love" marriages end in divorce."

You don't know that. The divorce rate stats don't show why or how people got married.

"but I have witnessed tribal societies and women are just as productive as men."

Yes, it was shocking to see those societies waiting for us when we got to the moon, and we should ever be grateful for their advances in medicine and engineering and agriculture that allowed millions to enjoy the prosperous lifestyle we enjoy.

Oh, wait, it's OUR society that managed all that, not tribal societies.

*I* wanted Michele Bachmann, not Mitt Romney; and I would like to know what color the sky is in your world where *anyone* would have been worse than the Marxist we have squatting in the WH now.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

I guess I'm at fault for thinking that the purpose of voting is to select the best alternatives for society. Prior to women voting, this generally worked, though it was certainly far from perfect. I don't know of a system that has worked better (again, prior to the women's vote), but if there is one, we should consider adopting it.

When women got the vote, it was no longer about doing what was best for society as a whole, but transferring resources to women, which completely undermines the society-based purpose of voting in the first place.

The greater aspect of voting is that prior to women voting, people were free to spend their collective resources as they deemed appropriate. It might be the best choice for society, or it might be a colossal blunder. But the expenditures were drawn from the society and spent as society decided best.

Only with the advent of the female vote has the franchise been used to commit the resources of FUTURE generations! It is one thing to steal money from the people who can vote you out of office. It is something else entirely to steal from generations unborn!!

If the principle is that voting should benefit society, rejecting the female vote is a principle-based decision. Women have shown themselves uniformly incapable of responsible (for the benefit of society) voting for more than 140 years. OTOH, if one thinks that voting should always favor men (or women) then your argument that it's a VALUES-weighted choice has merit.

Naturally, through this lens, one must examine the call for anarchy. If it benefits one group over another, is it principles-based or values-based? (I learn towards the former, as anarchy says nothing about what group should benefit more - but it does leave each person to their own capabilities, and that intrinsically means men have a substantial advantage.)

What say you to that?

(By the way, this is the sort of thoughtful discussion I'd hoped to find in the Gulch. Thank you for your efforts.)

Oh yeah. And I think you're right about anarchy.

By the way, who does better in a state of anarchy? Men? Or women?

And to think, women did it to themselves.

I think in PRINCIPLE, women would say it's wrong to steal money from one person just to give it to another.

But women's VALUES generally approve of stealing money from men for the benefit of women, hence the tendency to vote for government programs that steal from men for the benefit of women.

I think we're headed towards government collapse anyway. The dollar is so debased now, it should be worthless. Just not enough people shouting about the emperor's lack of clothing… yet. Indications are that China is maneuvering to make the Yuan the world reserve currency. Whether that actually happens or not is anyone's guess - but they certainly have the tools they need to kill the dollar.

So just imagine for an instant that the dollar is worthless. What happens to government? What happens to all the social welfare programs women have demanded? What happens to the "child support police"? What happens to all the welfare queens? Will single mothers suddenly rediscover the value of men? Will men care?

I think the times are due to become quite chaotic. We have almost as many firearms in private hands in this country as there are people. The military, all state, local and federal police combined are a tiny force compared to the number of gun owners. I don't know if a totalitarian government could stand (probably not), but if the government's biggest tool - money - becomes worthless, who will work for government?

Since government has generally turned out to be destructive to men and beneficial to women (in the short term), it seems possible that men will rebel, and the women's only hope of keeping government would be to… what? Go to war with men? Try to control men? Enslave men (more directly)?

Game over.

And yet, by allowing women to vote, you give to that group the power to force you to surrender your earnings for their benefit.

Wait. Isn't that what you're talking about? Slavery?

So neither solution is "perfect", but at some point we have to recognize that the female vote has destroyed (yeah, I think it's too late - so the past tense is applicable) America. Certainly men are on the hook to pay for the female version of "marrying the government".

This is an interesting perspective: Ladies, which is more important to you? Your principles? Or your values?
http://benswann.com/conservatives-are-co...

"The occasional big hunt" was what fed women throughout most of the existence of the species. Women who didn't value that didn't live and didn't reproduce.

Didn't women bring a dowery because they were generally considered a burden? The dowery is to offset the burden?

It's not nonsense to suggest that (as a group) women have always wanted free things and support. Molyneux crushes your argument - and you present no evidence.

Zenphamy: I think you're right. I think it's probably unfixable. We have to go through failure of the entire system first.

So if you know what's going to happen (women are going to keep adding to the debt) and you know that's unsustainable (at some point, the dollar will collapse, the government will mostly collapse, the welfare queens will go hungry, their children will starve), what do you do to capitalize on the situation? Because the point of "Atlas Shrugged" was that as society drives the productive from their ranks, society will suffer.

At this point, the women have brought it upon all of us, but more specifically, they've brought it on themselves. I expect a winnowing of the chaff.

But how do YOU come out on top?

"Romantic love" has long been established as more a factor of chemistry/hormones than anything else. Recent research even indicates that pheromones help people select bio-compatible mating partners.

Some people do find relationships that work over the long term. They are the exception. More than half of all "romantic love" marriages end in divorce.