Because groups win elections. And elections determine policies. You could go door-to-door for the rest of your life and never have a significant impact. I want to point out and make clear that the upcoming collapse is the direct and proximate result of the way women have voted. In a very real sense, women ELECTED the upcoming disaster.

Show me a successful campaign of any kind that dealt with over 100 million people and was accomplished one person at a time. The closest you can probably get is some religion - and yet, for example, do you think christianity would exist today without its (mass communication) device - the book?

I don't think it will make a difference in the short term. Women have set us too securely on the road to disaster. But perhaps when Americans finally dig themselves out of the rubble, they'll remember: "Women did this to us." It's a little like the Nazis leading Germany to "greatness", only to be bombed into submission. Today, Nazis are looked upon with scorn - as women will be if it becomes widely understood that they created the collapse.

That's when a repeal of the 19th Amendment becomes a possibility.

"Females are smaller in size and weaker than males, so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being victims of predators and violence. They needed the protection and support of men either because of their brute force or because of their social status in the group, which came about either through their physical strength or their personality. That’s why women still look for a male of higher social standing. If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing is elevated too.
Modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of those around them.
...
Women’s needs were much more pressing. They were unable to survive on their own and depended on the males around them to protect them. A woman isolated with a child would have died because she didn’t have the resources to find food.
...
Women may have equal earning power but in most cases they still seek high earning husbands they can depend on. IT’S SO INSTINCTIVE THEY DON’T EVEN REALISE IT." [caps mine]

Source: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...

To which I would add that the "man" with the most "brute force" is Uncle Sugar - and the women are lining up to jump in bed with him… hence all the female-approved welfare programs.

You are representing your gender in a way that makes my case.

I point out that women vote for socialism, and steal from others. I provide actual facts and figures. You produce no facts, no figures - and descend into emotional name-calling. I don't even have to make the case that women are too mentally unstable to be allowed to vote - you do it for me!

This is what it means to try to reason with a woman. If she doesn't like the facts, she screams and cries and calls you names.

Well done! And thanks for helping me prove my point.

You're basically correct, but where does that leave us? Isn't "taking something in the belief you can 'get away with it' " pretty much the definition of "thievery"? Are you saying women choose to be thieves?

Men certainly don't hold a monopoly on virtue, but if you eliminate the female vote, you solve the problem. If you eliminate the male vote, the problem just gets worse.

So which conclusion do you prefer?

1) Women are driven by natural selection to steal from others?
2) Women know they are stealing from others, but don't care?
3) Women are too ignorant/stupid to realize they're stealing from others?

Note that #1 does not preclude 2 or 3. A woman can be driven by biology to steal and be too stupid to know it. Or driven by biology to steal and not care.

As for the female/male ratio in this: It keeps coming up 2:1 female for use of stolen resources, except where it's higher (as in the WIC program). Note too that statistics point to disproprotionate use of stolen resources by minorities. Together, the women and minorities (blacks and hispanics) make up the primary constituentcy of the Democrat party - The Party of Women (and minorities) which incessantly pushes for MORE socialism and more theft from the productive class.

I'm certainly open to another explanation.

Does anyone have one?

None of which addresses the fact that women are more risk-averse than men. "Princess Syndrome" or not, even little girls and boys, largely unsocialized to any particular type of behavior, do in fact exhibit DIFFERENT behavior.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361SEX.html

Princess or not, I believe the need for a "safety net" is ubiquitous in females and relatively scarce among males.

Incidentally, the reference to higher brain function was an allusion to the relative strength of various drives. Think in terms of Maslow's hierarchy… which are mostly physical needs. Once one delves into the realm of mental function, the primary/basic needs are dealt with first - then the higher mental aspects. For those who think women live in the rarefied air of "philosophy", I submit that the greater attention is paid to from whence their next meal is coming long before they become "philosophical". Women are more likely to worry about who is going to take care of them than they are to philosophize about whether forcing other people to pay for their lives is moral.

I believe you are incorrect.

Philosophy is a higher brain function. The need of women for a "safety net" is much more basic. It's why the women hanging out around the fire back at the cave while their mates were out hunting bonded so closely with each other. Each hunt was a lottery. If their mate didn't come back, a woman without any mean of support would perish. More importantly in this context, their children would perish, which would mean that the tendency towards socialist behavior was reinforced by weeding out the alternative. This explains the greater emphasis on social bonds among women - and the scheming for a "safety net", even before there was such a thing as government.

Women are more risk averse. Men are more daring. There are literally MILLIONS of example of this. Women are compelled to try to use government to avoid risk. Men are more inclined to accept a challenge. I'd even go so far as to say that the female inclination to favor socialism is GENETIC.

I had in mind specifically the misapplication of the Commerce Clause. Read "Wickard v. Filburn". Understand that the decision was rendered while under threat of court-packing by FDR (may he rot in hell forever). It's a short decision - but critical - because upwards of 75-80% of all the federal operations that involve the states are under the "commerce" clause. It's like waving a magic wand and chanting "commerce clause" and suddenly it's "constitutional".

Wickard is a decision everyone should read. It will open your eyes to what a fraud is the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court. You'll read it and shake your head and clench your eyelids and ask yourself, "Did they REALLY just say that?" And then you'll read it again and sigh and say to yourself, "These people were fucking insane. No wonder everything is screwed up."

Add in the military misuse in undeclared wars, and I think you're easily at 90%.

Update: Just checked the stats for welfare use. Turns out 62% of welfare goes to blacks/hispanics who comprise less than 30% of the total population. Further, 85.2% of all TANF funds went to FEMALES.

Denying the vote to those drawing welfare payments would eliminate about 1.6 million female voters and about 1.23 hispanics and blacks - all of which are disproportionately represented in the Party of Women (Demoncraps). And that's just TANF. Add in food stamps (SNAP), and you bag another 47 million people who think someone else should pay for them to live.

Another 2.3 million women receive WIC, a program which, by its very name, excludes men.

Women use SNAP (food stamps) at twice the rate of men. There are 47 million SNAP recipients. That's 31 million female votes that need to go "bye bye".

Total them all up and you get upwards of 31 million females who would not be voting.

Which would be a big improvement.

A similar improvement would be the roughly 15 million men who could no longer vote to steal money from working people for their own benefit.

In 2012, the popular vote split between Obozo and the Romulan was less than 5 million votes. Take out the votes of 31 million female and 15 million male welfare recipients (even at a participation rate of just 20%) and Obozo loses.

Both comments are noted. You might not like parts of the reply - so hang on tight!

Women are the gender of consensus. They are constantly seeking and giving "approval" to each other. The herd mentality runs from the mundane (going to the bathroom in droves) to the spectacularly bad (voting for Obozo and the social welfare agenda). For women, thinking is part "hive mind" activity, and that hive mind cannot understand someone - me for example - who does not give a rat's ass whether you approve. I've read articles that suggest that this is an evolutionary difference between men and women. Women are more collaborative, social, and needful of approval and mutual support. Men are more likely to be loners, independent, self-sufficient and not requiring everyone to agree with them. Think of the activities that men and women engaged in during the first 98,000 years of homo sapiens.

I'm not trying to persuade you, convince you, wheedle, beg or plead for you to see my viewpoint. If you turn your back on the facts, then you're a moron and not worth my time. If you engage on the facts, even to the point of disagreeing and presenting facts of your own - then you've earned the right to have an opinion. Else what you think does not matter.

It's pretty common for women to term this "misogyny" because the lack of approval is scary to them, and they don't understand it - but it's something else - and perhaps much worse to most women: Indifference. I… don't… care… what… you… think… about… me. If you're too stupid to see truth when it's laid out in front of you - that's your problem, not mine.

Regards the 19th Amendment - it's the gateway legislation that allowed women to undermine and destroy everything that men had built in America. You may not think that's a bad thing - but I can think of few precedents with a more disastrous result. We survived WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, the cold war, the nuclear arms race, desegregation, Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression, the great depression - only to be destroyed by the women's vote.

Misogyny implies hatred of women. But hatred isn't rational because women can't help themselves. One might as well "hate" your dog for crapping on the carpet. Until they're trained differently, they're just dumb animals who don't know any better. It's the same with women - except you can't hit women over the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (At least, not through the internet.) So it's harder to train them because they get all in a huff over perceived slights and their heads just explode.

I agree that (unfortunately) repeal of the 19th Amendment is a non-starter - for now. If you read elsewhere on this page I HAVE suggested another possibility - that being denying the vote to anyone who accepts government aid. Of course, this will largely affect women who are dipping into the welfare pots that they've voted to create. Some bimbo will probably think THAT'S misogynistic too.

All together now: I - DON'T - CARE !!!

Sorry, but Obozo wasn't elected by men.

In fact, but for the women's vote, the last Republican to lose the White House vote would have been Barry Goldwater.

Which is the greater danger to America? Social welfare programs? Or corporate schmoozing?

News flash - it's social welfare in a landslide!

It would have to be something really simple - else you'd eliminate most voters. Even something like, "Name three candidates for the office of president and what parties they're from" would stump most voters.

It's sort of like women in the military. If we made them meet the same standards as the men, there wouldn't BE any women in the military. (Okay, okay. Maybe 90% less. Some could meet standards. But most currently on active duty could not.)

And so goes the other one note band.