Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: OMFAlthouse Previous entry: Newt converts to Catholicism - conservative says his ‘sins no longer exist’

Freepers debate whether women should be able to vote

The knuckle-dragging fantasist misogynists at the Free Republic got a hard on after reading the article “Women’s Right to Vote, the Beginning of the End for America?” The premise of the piece, as the title suggests, is that once women were able to vote, it ushered in decision-making based on emotion, not logic (and the resulting destruction of society is the fault of females).

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.

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.

Unfortunately men eventually abdicated their God given responsibility and allowed their emotional partner an equal footing in deciding the country’s fate. From that day forward, men have been vying for the emotional vote of the women and worrying about their reactions after they got in office. Thus they have become more emotional in their legislating then logical.

The author of this

flaming pile of sh*t

thought piece, “OneVike,” then goes on to give an example—a California law making helmets mandatory when operating a non motorized scooter or skateboard, citing “overprotective mother” syndrome at work.

Oh, it doesn’t take long for the essay to go from the evils of feminizing political progress to, well, just read…

I realize that these laws have been passed by mostly men, but the only reason these men got elected was because they played upon the fears of women and castrated men during the election campaign.

...America has become a country of whining, sniveling, emotional pansies who the politicians have learned to play like a Stradivarius. Any politician that is unable to take advantage of the emotional American public has almost no chance of getting elected dog catcher let alone to congress or the White House. Even George Bush used the term, “Compassionate Conservative” to get elected to two terms.

Wow. This is one person with serious issues about masculinity. So what did the Freepi have to say about all this? See after the jump.
While they are at it, they mull the wisdom of letting non-property owners vote.


Actual Freeper Quotes

Yes. I firmly believe it was a major step towards the destruction of America.

Well I can think of a few women that shouldn’t be in office. And I’m ok with my wife being able to vote, as long as she votes for who I tell her too. smile

It’s dangerous to make broad generalizations. But it is true. Women tend more to think emotionally than men do. And our government today would be much more conservative had women never been allowed to vote.

Ann Coulter has said that if women couldn’t vote, we’d never see a Democrat in the White House again.

That certainly changed the whole course of elections.

I would say the bigger change occurred when all people could vote and not just land owners. Our problems today can be pointed to opening up voting to people who have not clue as to economics.

Yes, the downfall of America began with the women’s right to vote.

That may or may not be true. If women couldn’t vote, democrats would be forced to appeal to a different kind of electorate.

Yeah, it hurt. But in a span of very few years, we also got the direct election of Senators, another amendment to allow a federal income tax, and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

No nation based on freedom and liberty was going to withstand this onslaught indefinitely. It took about 100 years, but we finally have more leaks in the dike than we can plug.

This is a tough subject. Are we bigots just for discussing this? I can not say I disagree with the premise. Men and women are different…...let me be more direct um maybe this is the one thing the muzzies got right.

Ann is absolutely correct. If we look at all the presidential elections since 1920, not one Democrat would have been elected to the White House. Just think about how things would have been different.

Yeah, and how different the electorate would be if blacks couldn’t vote, but people don’t go advocating for that. Let’s lay off the fantasy of denying women civil rights—or we’re no better than those in the Middle East who want to subjugate all Americans.

yes, gipper, when those who were not property owners and thus did not have a stake in the country were allowed to vote, that was another huge mistake.

It was a big mistake, possibly fatal. We were never intended to be a pure democracy, that we are approching that state will be our downfall.

if their wives see any of this, there will be a bunch that will never ever get any, every again….as the old saying goes…..the lady holds the purse strings…and the problem is, that in men the all the blood leaves the brain when they get excited…...

Mrs. OneVike agrees with me. While she is as conservative as I am, she would willingly give up her right to vote if we rescinded the 19th amendment. She knows that it would be good for the country in the long run. Alas, as I said it would be easier to hold back the rising waters of the Red River then to rescind the 19th amendment.

The UN is actively working on womens rights which translates as an attack on men. Men are seen as the root of all evil.

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.

Many native American cultures recognized that men were driven by their hormones. They established that post menopausal women should make the major decisions for the tribe because they were the most rational and least likely to be hormone driven. I agree. Let’s allow only women who have completed menopause to vote and make all the decisions. After all, it is supported by science.

Has anyone ever noticed the damage women clergy have done to the churches into which they have been ordained?

I don’t see advocacy for that anywhere in the article. OneVike makes a historical argument for what brought America to where it is today; in fact, he states that it was men who abdicated responsibility and led to this.

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.

I’m sure that is why the Taliban doesn’t allow their women to vote either.

And far too many Neanderthals are out on this thread tonight. Later, knuckledraggers.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 01:35 PM • (106) Comments

Mrs. OneVike agrees with me. While she is as conservative as I am, she would willingly give up her right to vote if we rescinded the 19th amendment. She knows that it would be good for the country in the long run.

Mrs. OneVike is also entirely imaginary.

Comment #1: Danica Lefse Queen  on  03/30  at  01:45 PM

Put it in the sunshine.

These people hate everyone.  Seeing that hatred really shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Just remember that these are the people the GOP calls their base.  These hateful people are the ones the GOP panders to for votes (while enacting policies that only help the wealthy).

Comment #2: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/30  at  01:52 PM

“maybe this is the one thing the muzzies got right. “

That’s my favorite bit - combining one part sexism with a religious slur.

I also really like the idea that (a) women are responsible for World War II because they’re so emotional they just HAD to go get the Nazis and (b) that World War II was the crowning achievement of American willpower and the peak of our national pride.

Comment #3: Billingham  on  03/30  at  01:55 PM

The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.

Women elected Hitler?

Comment #4: Joshua  on  03/30  at  01:56 PM

I can’t bring myself to read all this. I’m compelled to respond after reading the first excerpt, though. Excuse me? Men are rational actors who behave logically? Then where did rape come from? Why has rape existed for so many centuries if men are logical thinkers rather than emotional beasts?

Comment #5: Orange  on  03/30  at  02:04 PM

Let’s see. Before 1920 we had slavery, the Civil War, genocide of the Native Americans, a low standard of living outside of the upper and upper middle class, horrendous slums, polio, the influenza pandemic, World War I, and an economy where depressions and panics were common. Just to be even handed we also got the light bulb, railroad, the FDA (albeit with major pressure from non-voting women), and American literature.

In the aftermath of women voting we’ve had Social Security, the successful defense of the country in the Second World War and the Cold War, the G.I. Bill, a massive increase in the national standard of living, sustained (if not always sustainable) economic growth, civil rights, jazz, rock ‘n roll, movies with sound, and the Internet. On the downside, nuclear weapons, AIDS, and Free Republic.

I still say after 1920 beats before 1920 with a very big stick.

Comment #6: histro-geek  on  03/30  at  02:05 PM

There has always been strong women have stood behind their men

That’s not even English.

Comment #7: Kristen from MA  on  03/30  at  02:07 PM

Men are rational actors who behave logically? Then where did rape come from? Why has rape existed for so many centuries if men are logical thinkers rather than emotional beasts?

Rape came from women, obviously.  Haven’t you read your Keyes or your Gingrich?  Men are logical creatures who only act irrationally when faced with devilish temptresses.  You know, like 11 year old girls.

Comment #8: Billingham  on  03/30  at  02:09 PM

That comment thread is really better used as evidence that men shouldn’t have the right to vote.  Luckily, not all men are crazy wingnuts, but apparently the Freepers seem to think they are.

Comment #9: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/30  at  02:14 PM

Looking at the excerpts from the article, I thought I was reading something by the odious VoxDay. 
You mean there is more than just him that believes this crap?
/sarcasm

Really though, that is some serious misogyny there.  They can’t actually have relationships with real women that don’t involve servitude can they?  Crap, that is a dumb question, of course they can’t.

Comment #10: gravitybear  on  03/30  at  02:14 PM

I can’t wait until these supposed “men” go Galt on their sex lives.

(But judging by the mysogyny, they haven’t met any women that they haven’t had to inflate)

Comment #11: cynickal  on  03/30  at  02:16 PM

Freepers debate whether women should be able to vote?

How about “Women (and non-idiotic men) debate whether Freepers should be able to vote”? wink

Comment #12: BlackBloc  on  03/30  at  02:19 PM

Before 1920 we had slavery, the Civil War, genocide of the Native Americans, a low standard of living outside of the upper and upper middle class, horrendous slums

I think many Freepers would see these as good things, leaving aside the Civil War (which was only bad because the Confederacy lost).

Comment #13: killjoy  on  03/30  at  02:21 PM

My favorite was:

It’s dangerous to make broad generalizations. But it is true.

I cracked up at that one.

Comment #14: Mandos  on  03/30  at  02:29 PM

I’m breathless.

*checks calendar*

Yes, it’s still the 21st Century.  Don’t they think that women read their stuff?  Can anyone actually be this dismissive and clueless.  These people are becoming cartoons.

Comment #15: Magis  on  03/30  at  02:29 PM

“Luckily, not all men are crazy wingnuts, but apparently the Freepers seem to think they are.”

...well, everyone they know is a crazy wingnut, so they’re just presenting <strike>the world as they see it</strike> a twisted alternative hell on earth with little to no relationship with reality…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  02:38 PM

Well that was… bracing.

histro-geek, they’re fine with those things, or they wouldn’t be freepers.

Comment #17: purpleshoes  on  03/30  at  02:41 PM

Dirty Jobs?  Here’s a dirty job: giving birth and tending to a newborn.  I’d like to see the Dirty Jobs guy tackle that one.

I think they should move on to a discussion about how the South went downhill when those n-people got the vote.  Twice.

Comment #18: Ms Kate  on  03/30  at  02:41 PM

I would say the bigger change occurred when all people could vote and not just land owners. Our problems today can be pointed to opening up voting to people who have not clue as to economics.

It’s always kinda neat when the wingnuts are honest with themselves about exactly what their movement stands for - oligarchy and aristocracy as opposed to the democracy favored by liberals.  I think this might be the one thing the freepers and Howard Zinn agree on.

Comment #19: The Opoponax  on  03/30  at  02:43 PM

The UN is actively working on womens rights which translates as an attack on men.

Zero-sum thinking in a nutshell - WingNutshell that is ... never mind that increased status for women usually translates into healthier families and healthier, wealthier men as well.

Comment #20: Ms Kate  on  03/30  at  02:43 PM

“I can’t wait until these supposed “men” go Galt on their sex lives.”

If they want to keep their bodily fluids pure then they already deny women their essence, even though it’s very attractive…

Comment #21: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  02:46 PM

Mrs. OneVike is also entirely imaginary.

No, I’m sure he has at least one wanking hand.

Comment #22: tb  on  03/30  at  02:58 PM

Let’s see, he thinks that giving the vote to women has ruined the US but he doesn’t advocate taking it away from women? Even in his stupidity, he’s illogical. Of course anyone who thinks the US pre 1920 was better than it is now, is stupid in any case—in what way was the US better back then?

Comment #23: JohnL  on  03/30  at  02:59 PM

Women aren’t voting for us! What should we do?

Yes: Listen to their concerns and integrate them into your party platform.
No: Revoke their right to vote.

Conservative FAIL.

Comment #24: BlackBloc  on  03/30  at  02:59 PM

“I would say the bigger change occurred when all people could vote and not just land owners. Our problems today can be pointed to opening up voting to people who have not clue as to economics.”


Whenever I’m discussing politics with my liberal friends, I always point out the disturbing fact that so many conservatives wax poetic about “the good old days” and how those good old days are always pre-Women’s Movement and pre-Civil Rights.  But even though I’ve long noticed this pattern, seeing the above sentence actually written out in 2009 is so shocking and so heart-breaking.  And liberals are anti-American and unpatriotic?

Comment #25: Blitzgal  on  03/30  at  03:10 PM

Wow.  I’ve just read a few of those comments on FR.  I really need a shower.

Comment #26: Captain Bathrobe  on  03/30  at  03:12 PM

If it is any solace, the typical lifespan of a man, pre-1920, wasn’t long.  If they want to go back in time and then die in proportion to their societal status, they are welcome to do so.

Of course, back then, they wouldn’t have been illiterate mill workers or sharecroppers - they would have been mill owners and captains of industry like every white man was!

Comment #27: Ms Kate  on  03/30  at  03:15 PM

I can only stare at this in horror, while knowing that it is just more evidence of what I have always believed - if you are a conservative woman, you are self-hating.

Comment #28: Lady Vader  on  03/30  at  03:16 PM

“I would say the bigger change occurred when all people could vote and not just land owners. Our problems today can be pointed to opening up voting to people who have not clue as to economics.”

Because owning a piece of land automatically bestows economic expertise upon the owner.

Comment #29: Raging Red  on  03/30  at  03:17 PM

“Because owning a piece of land automatically bestows economic expertise upon the owner.”

Sure it does.  Just like having testicles automatically makes you immune from emotional appeals, so you can be a coldly logical decision maker…

Comment #30: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  03:20 PM

*headasplode*

Comment #31: L33tminion  on  03/30  at  03:22 PM

@JohnL

-in what way was the US better back then?

Sideburns…wicked awesome sideburns.

It always makes me happy when I see people letting their asshole flags fly, lets you know exactly who you’re dealing with.

Comment #32: Babieca  on  03/30  at  03:23 PM

“The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.

Women elected Hitler?”

Now you have brought that up, this is or was actually a popular meme in Germany.

It is not true, as far as we know.

Comment #33: _IM_  on  03/30  at  03:24 PM

It’s useless to argue with someone like OneVike about the ability (or lack thereof) of an entire gender to think logically, etc.  Even assuming that everything OneVike says about women’s voting is true—women are part of humanity, and that alone furnishes more than ample justification for women’s suffrage, even if they tend to vote in ways that OneVike does not like.  The premise of OneVike’s argument—albeit one he did not articulate for reasons that are perfectly clear—is that women exist merely to accommodate, that they are objects of history, not subjects; in other words, that only men are human, that history and the world belong to men, and by voting, women are butting into someone else’s business.  The essence of democracy is co-existence among voters who “process information differently”, who have different values and priorities, and who make political decisions that may seem to some crazy, irrational or bizarre.  We may criticize and ridicule each other, but taking away someone’s right to vote because you disagree with them is lethal to democracy.  If women should lose the right to vote because they are “emotional”, then why not set a minimum IQ for male suffrage (at, say, 120 points)?  Why not deny the right to vote to people who lack formal education, or people who are computer-illiterate?  Why not deny the right to vote to men who don’t work in “dirty jobs” OneVike is talking about?  Oh, heck, why don’t we just make it easy for everyone: institute a one-party rule and legislate one right answer to every social, political, and economic issue, and then deny the right to vote (or better yet, send to the gulags) anyone who dares to think differently.  Hmm.  Didn’t someone in the Freep comment section say something about women being responsible for totalitarianism?  Well, in that case, logic dictates that OneVike is female.

Comment #34: Redisca  on  03/30  at  03:32 PM

I wonder how the freepers account for the election of Abraham Lincoln.  He pulled the ultimate warm fuzzy when he freed all those cute little pickaninnies.  Suppose Lincoln was actually a woman disguised as a man?

Comment #35: ummeli  on  03/30  at  03:34 PM

It is not true, as far as we know.

“A woman’s world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.” - Adolf Hitler

“Women are unable to think logically or reason objectively, since they are ruled only by emotion.” - Adolf Hitler

Comment #36: Sarcastro  on  03/30  at  03:38 PM

This is one of my favorites:

Has anyone ever noticed the damage women clergy have done to the churches into which they have been ordained?

Let’s see, it was the Papa Ratzi’s boyz who shipped the pedophile rapist priests around and around parishes to molest as many children as possible, then paid off families to be silent.

I cannot imagine an act that any (imaginary) damage women clergy have caused that can top that atrocity.

Comment #37: Pam Spaulding  on  03/30  at  03:45 PM

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.  However it was that slow and methodical thought process that allowed for an orderly progression that worked for thousands of years.

I still remember the first stage of the Soviet Union’s demise.  One winter morning in 1988, in a region called Upper Karabakh on the border between southern Europe and Central Asia, a group of Azeris marched on an Armenian village. For decades, these people lived side by side, but that morning, instead of going to work as usual, the Muslim Azeris and the Christian Armenians went to kill each other.  Must be what the men in those villages decided at the end of a “slow and methodical thought process” was “best for their communities”—a little carnage.  And in deed, hasn’t ethnic and religious carnage been an inalienable part of life “that worked for thousands of years”?  Oh, OneVike.  I also remember all those reports about women blocking raging crowds and pleading with the men to stop the massacre.  Must be because those women felt their men “moved to slow” towards peaceful co-existence and didn’t understand that ethnic violence had to follow “an orderly progression” that, apparently, only the male mind can grasp.

Comment #38: Redisca  on  03/30  at  03:45 PM

Don’t forget it was Germans who gave us Kinder, Küche, Kirche...

Comment #39: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  03:46 PM

“Let’s see, it was the Papa Ratzi’s boyz who shipped the pedophile rapist priests around and around parishes to molest as many children as possible, then paid off families to be silent.”

...yes, but at least they were molested in a logical and unemotional way…

Comment #40: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  03:48 PM

Dirty Jobs?  Here’s a dirty job: giving birth and tending to a newborn.  I’d like to see the Dirty Jobs guy tackle that one.

He didn’t tackle that exactly, but they did send him to infant day care one time.  As with every dirty job they send him on, he came to the conclusion that it’s a really difficult job and you have to admire the people who are willing to do it.

I really like that show because I don’t think I’ve ever seen Mike Rowe condescend to someone about their job.  Plus half the point of the show is puncturing his male ego.  There was the time on Vomit Island where he was having trouble getting a baby bird out of a nest and the (female) head scientist called up, “Mike, do we have to send a girl up to do your job?”  Heh.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  03/30  at  03:53 PM

You know when things went wrong? 1215 when King John signed the Magna Carta. There have been a lot of wars since then. See, I can be a freeper too. Thanks for the afternoon laugh.

Comment #42: sancerre2001  on  03/30  at  03:57 PM

in other words, that only men are human, that history and the world belong to men, and by voting, women are butting into someone else’s business.

I agree, and the freepers have obviously provided tons of evidence for you. I’d like to submit this gem for Exhibit 6.02 x 10^23:

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.

In Freeper land if women are allowed to express their opinion or have any affect on the public sector, they DOMINATE. Because the majority of people who run the government, financial sector, news media, entertainment media, judicial system, and all other industries are women. What?


And I reject their premise that emotion fucks everything up. Sure, unexamined emotion carried out with no checks by logic is pretty harmful, like uhh…domestic abuse, or rape, or revenge. But emotion informing logical decisions is what gives people empathy and drives them to make ethical changes in politics. Coldly logical decisions are generally attributed to totalitarian dictators and sociopaths, because then who cares if millions of people are enslaved and/or die if it’s For The Greater Good. Maybe that is what freepers want after all.

Comment #43: HeatherMae  on  03/30  at  03:57 PM

I don’t know anything about the gold standard, but I do love little kittens.

Comment #44: ACG  on  03/30  at  04:02 PM

Nonsense, sancerre2001.  It all went wrong when the Persians failed to crush Athens and its idiotic “democracy” meme back in the 6th century BC.  Why, if it hadn’t been for those Greeks and their radical, anti-conservative ideologies, we’d all be living in a properly ordered society under Hammurabi’s elegant legal system.

By the way, does anyone have two goats to change for an oxen?  I left my clay tablets in my other wallet.

Comment #45: tannenburg  on  03/30  at  04:02 PM

Mikey:

I also really like the idea that ... World War II was the crowning achievement of American willpower and the peak of our national pride.

Ironically, World War II was also the crowning achievement of German willpower and the peak of their national pride.

Just goes to show that no matter how many times it rears its ugly head and sends the world into a downward spiral of death and destruction, there are still going to be plenty of people who just love them some fascism.

Comment #46: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  03/30  at  04:07 PM

>It is not true, as far as we know.

“A woman’s world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.” - Adolf Hitler

“Women are unable to think logically or reason objectively, since they are ruled only by emotion.” - Adolf Hitler<

Well, perhaps I should expand my remarks. Data on voting behaviour is somewhat spare for Germany in the Weimar Republic, as it is probably for the US too in that period. One uses proxies, like demographic characterictics of voting districts. That doesn’t help in the case of gender though.

The suffrage of woman was a result of the 1918 revolution, being introduced by the social democrats. It was expected that the left would - at least up to a point reap the rewards in the elections for the national assembly in January 1919. Now this whole women voting being new, in same cities women and men voted seperately. So we have some data for the 1919 election. And there woman skewed to the right. Women, especially in the working class being morr church oriented than men, tended to vote for parties allied with the established churches. So the Zentrum Party, allied with the catholic church and the conservative DNVP, allied with the lutheran church profited.

Ungrateful, fickle women!
It does proves though that they were independent enough to vote different than their men.

This being 1919, that tells us nothing about the NSDAP. We can assume that because of the more secular character of the NSDAP, it did not profit from the women vote like the other right wing parties.

So women: Not being responsible for Hitler! And now you can finally sleep well.

Comment #47: _IM_  on  03/30  at  04:26 PM

Yeah, it hurt. But in a span of very few years, we also got the direct election of Senators, another amendment to allow a federal income tax, and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Um, is this guy blaming women voting for these things?  Because they all passed before women got the vote nationally. 
Direct Election of Senators: 17th Amendment
Income Tax: 16th Amendment, 1913, new tax laws using it passed that same year.
Federal Reserve Act: 1913
19th Amendment (women voting): 1920

Comment #48: Woodrowfan  on  03/30  at  04:29 PM

I’ll tell you when it really went wrong, when God took that rib from Adam and created Eve. He was minding his own business, logically having a BBQ with some beef and some pork and the occasional pheasant….when all hell broke loose.

Comment #49: sancerre2001  on  03/30  at  04:30 PM

In 1776 these morons would have been staunch defenders of the divine right of kings, asserting that democracy would fail because commoners were too stupid to know what was good for them.

Comment #50: damnedyankee  on  03/30  at  04:34 PM

Don’t you love it when freepers cocksuck Reagan and then don’t even spell his name right?

You have to go back to Ronald Reagen’s victories in 1980 and ‘84” to find the last time the candidate running on a campaign of logic won the Presidency. He presented America with the truth about where we were headed and he never shied away from the logical unemotional facts.


From Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address:

We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?

Apparently Reagan’s a chick. 

P.S.  Are men castrated by my just being in this country, or do I actually have to vote/speak?

Comment #51: deep6  on  03/30  at  04:39 PM

P.S.  Are men castrated by my just being in this country, or do I actually have to vote/speak?

As I understand it, you just sit there and exude femininity.  Eventually it makes its way into the water supply, and from there into the systems of Red-Blooded American Males.

Weenie shrinkage and loss of gonad diameter is almost instantaneous at that point.

Comment #52: damnedyankee  on  03/30  at  04:47 PM

Just in California alone, over 200 new laws get passed every year by politicians who think more with their hearts then with their brains.

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?

Uh, cause of the insurance lobby’s liabilities protection racket?

Or maybe because kids aren’t mature enough to make decisions regarding their safety interests, so adults have to do it for them?

Or maybe because the NIH recommends helmets for children and not biking or skating at night to prevent skull fractures and subsequent brain damage?

Shit, this seems like the textbook definition of a “logical” law.

Or, kind of like “activist judge” = any judge whose opinion I disagree with, is “emotional law” = any law I dislike on its face?  No doubt OneFreep fell off his bike a couple times.  Just wants everyone to be like him.

Comment #53: deep6  on  03/30  at  04:55 PM

Um, is this guy blaming women voting for these things?

I think he’s saying that the problem isn’t just with women getting the vote, the problem is that the US governmental and economic systems were not allowed to ossify into feudalism.  Woman Suffrage was really just one aspect of a larger trend, in his eyes: the unfortunate trend towards democracy and a somewhat equitable economic landscape.

Comment #54: The Opoponax  on  03/30  at  04:56 PM

It’s been brought up but as a black woman I’m waiting for the day when someone decides to point to black people getting the right to vote as down point for America. Though, the whole, “landowner” thing seems to be hinting towards that.

It’s really transparent because when you look at the obvious question, “How did we (white male conservatives) lose power?” and then watch them flail over the answers (i.e. women, black people and poor people got tired of being treated like shit).

Comment #55: UltraMagnus  on  03/30  at  04:57 PM

Because owning a piece of land automatically bestows economic expertise upon the owner.

Well yeah. I mean, sure, I had the minor in economics in college. But I didn’t understand any of it until I signed the Trust Deed. Then, suddenly, those 20 credit hours ceased to be a waste, and all the information suddenly made sense!

Well, except the parts with math. Math is too hard for us girls, even when we own property.

Comment #56: Av0gadro  on  03/30  at  04:58 PM

According to Mr. OneVike,  “Reagen” was the last really manly president (Bush got all girlified with that Compassionate Conservativeness). 

Maybe he’ll delete my comment about the spelling, though, since my name is kinda femme looking.  Women thinking they can read and all.

Comment #57: vyreque  on  03/30  at  04:58 PM

He presented America with the truth about where we were headed and he never shied away from the logical unemotional facts.

Except on HIV, but then that’s different because it only affects Teh Ghey, just like old Ronnie Raygun said…

Comment #58: The Opoponax  on  03/30  at  04:59 PM

Wait, he thinks women are the ones who are ruled by their emotions?  Why is it that some men justify rape by saying they just can’t control their hormones when they see a woman’s ankle?  Or why is that some men justify bar fights, wars, etc., by saying that men just get too angry to control themselves?  Lust and anger are both emotions, last time I checked.  I guess it’s ok to be ruled by those emotions, but not by basic empathy for other human beings.

And, like plenty of others have pointed out, we haven’t gone downhill since women started voting; we’ve mostly improved since then.  Does he really think the Good Old Days(TM) were so good when half of all children died before age 5?  My bet is that he would say all these good things happened in spite of women voting, rather than because of it.  Of course there’s no way to prove what would have happened if history had been different, so he can basically make up whatever he wants to justify his misogyny and call it his opinion.  I feel nothing but pity for his wife, and I wonder how she ended up with a guy like that.  He must have some serious issues if he is this insecure.

Comment #59: bananacat  on  03/30  at  05:01 PM

Well, except the parts with math. Math is too hard for us girls, even when we own property.

I think they’re pretty upset about you owning property, too.  [dies a little inside]

Comment #60: Gavel Down  on  03/30  at  05:03 PM

Just in California alone, over 200 new laws get passed every year by politicians who think more with their hearts then with their brains.

  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?

Uh, cause of the insurance lobby’s liabilities protection racket?

Or maybe because kids aren’t mature enough to make decisions regarding their safety interests, so adults have to do it for them?

Or maybe because the NIH recommends helmets for children and not biking or skating at night to prevent skull fractures and subsequent brain damage?

Or maybe because a brain-damaged 18-year-old becomes a public charge and instead of being a productive member of society and a taxpayer, spends his life being supported and cared for by the taxpayers?  (And I mean, even if we repeal all social welfare programs, that brain-damaged teenager will still impose a cost on the public fisc.) And therefore, by passing laws that reduce the numbers of teenagers becoming brain-damaged, the government is actually saving money (or at least, that’s the idea)?

Comment #61: Redisca  on  03/30  at  05:04 PM

Don’t forget it was Germans who gave us Kinder, Küche, Kirche…

Er, no.  It was some horny amoeba billions of years ago, a neanderthal who discovered how to make fire hundreds of thousands of years ago, and Saul of Tarsus two thousand years ago respectively.  But thank you for playing.

Comment #62: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/30  at  05:04 PM

I think they’re pretty upset about you owning property, too.  [dies a little inside]

Well yes, but at least my husband’s name is first on the mortgage. We totally did that because he’s my lord and master. Or something.

Comment #63: Av0gadro  on  03/30  at  05:05 PM

“It’s been brought up but as a black woman I’m waiting for the day when someone decides to point to black people getting the right to vote as down point for America. Though, the whole, “landowner” thing seems to be hinting towards that.”


Oh, that’s TOTALLY what I read into that statement!  But I wonder how many Freepers would have been landowners back then?  Home ownership today has got to be far easier than it was back then.  But I’m just guessing.

Comment #64: Blitzgal  on  03/30  at  05:16 PM

The lynchpin of his argument is that men are Mr. Spock and women are Dr. McCoy.

Except that then he has to side with Mr. Spock because there’s no Captain Kirk around to make synthesis of logic and emotion. He doesn’t even choose Spock because he likes him; he chooses Spock because to choose McCoy would make his dick fall off.

Sorry: I have Star Trek on the brain right now. But the whole logic vs. emotion false choice is just begging for it, anyway.

Comment #65: Falconer  on  03/30  at  05:18 PM

I have to admit that country would benefit from excluding women from the voting rolls.  After all, the polling data from 1992 and 1996 indicated that if only men had voted, we would have avoided Caligula of the Ozarks.

Comment #66: Bismarck  on  03/30  at  05:22 PM

Or maybe because a brain-damaged 18-year-old becomes a public charge and instead of being a productive member of society and a taxpayer, spends his life being supported and cared for by the taxpayers?

I thought brain-damaged 18 year olds just became Freepers…

Comment #67: ummeli  on  03/30  at  05:23 PM

“Home ownership today has got to be far easier than it was back then.  But I’m just guessing. “

If I had to guess, I’d guess that suburbia as we know it didn’t exist a hundred years ago, and so if you wanted to own a house, you had to buy a substantial amount of property on which to put it; and thus cities were surrounded by the mansions of the wealthy, and crowded with the tenements of the poor whom the wealthy exploited in their Triangle Shirtwaist Factories, etc.

Comment #68: Falconer  on  03/30  at  05:26 PM

“I have to admit that country would benefit from excluding women from the voting rolls.  After all, the polling data from 1992 and 1996 indicated that if only men had voted, we would have avoided Caligula of the Ozarks. “

You are *not* blaming C+ Augustus on my mom, my aunts, my cousins, my wife, my in-laws, etc., etc., etc., just because they are a) distaff and b) voted in 2000 and 2004.

And just who was it thought W was a good guy to “have a beer with?”

Comment #69: Falconer  on  03/30  at  05:28 PM

I thought brain-damaged 18 year olds just became Freepers…

Awh, in that case, I can see the logic of him disliking that law.  Sorry, being female, I overlooked an important fact that totally changes the outcome. :((

On a different note—referring to the calls for limiting the right to vote to property owners—I recall that it’s not uncommon for rich people to bequeath substantial property to their pets.  Yes, there are cats and dogs in this country that own real estate (via a trust, but still).  Should they have the right to vote?

Comment #70: Redisca  on  03/30  at  05:29 PM

“Though, the whole, “landowner” thing seems to be hinting towards that.”

Oh, that’s TOTALLY what I read into that statement!

Enh, maybe.  The reality is that there really were laws disenfranchising white males who did not own property into the 19th century, and it’s something that wasn’t firmly done away with until the Reconstruction Amendments.  I think if they specifically meant nonwhites they’d have just come out and said it—this is an open admission of the sort of misogyny that was out of style a century ago.  Though you’re right, of course, that the political changes that gave non-owners the franchise also did away with things like debtors’ prisons and the quasi-baronial land grant estates of upstate New York.

Comment #71: The Opoponax  on  03/30  at  05:32 PM

I know it’s wrong, but I can’t resist: ”...Caligula of the Ozarks.”

Does that make Rush Limbaugh the Pablo Escobar of Florida?...

Comment #72: MikeEss  on  03/30  at  05:35 PM

The comments over there made me cry.

Except this one, which actually amused me:

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.

I was amused firstly because I like to see a Manly American Christian say that an Islamic Chinese nation is his true ideal.

I was amused secondly because the BF and I both dearly want any/all children to be girls. We just like girls. I mean, we’d love a boy just as much, but we just like girls. But, oh dear, who will support us?!?

Comment #73: Essie Elephant  on  03/30  at  05:37 PM

I’d guess that suburbia as we know it didn’t exist a hundred years ago, and so if you wanted to own a house, you had to buy a substantial amount of property on which to put it

Well, not really.  The part of Manhattan known as Greenwich Village was a suburb of New York City in the early 19th century.

Of course, you’re right that suburbia was the province of the well off.  But then not much has changed.  And the reason for that wasn’t the matter of needing a big parcel of land so much as being able to afford to transport yourself into the city to do business in an efficient manner.  Poor urban dwellers couldn’t afford to commute, so they needed to live near their work. 

What really changed, anyway, was the size of the middle class—I currently live in a part of Brooklyn which was developed as a suburb right before the Civil War; there were a few mansions (mainly left over from the early 19th century when the area was a country estate), but it’s mostly row-houses and small apartment buildings which would have been inhabited by the 19th century equivalent of today’s McMansionites.

Comment #74: The Opoponax  on  03/30  at  05:42 PM

You got to hand it to the guy—it can’t be easy to announce in public that you’ve been castrated.  Hopefully, he can get a job in a choir somewhere . . .

Comment #75: rea  on  03/30  at  05:56 PM

Having barely skimmed the excerpted parts, I see at least 2 problems with the writer’s “logic.” First, Bush the Younger governed emotionally, didn’t he? He even bragged about making “gut decisions.” Was Bush more feminine than masculine, and as such, did the writer denounce him during his administration?


And second, how does the writer get from women are emotional, men are not to ” ...America has become a country of whining, sniveling, emotional pansies who the politicians have learned to play like a Stradivarius. Any politician that is unable to take advantage of the emotional American public…” “America,” he says twice, which would include men as well as women.

If this is a demonstration of the writer’s own logic, I can only conclude - for the umpteenth time - that “conservative logic” is an oxymoron. They just don’t think the way we do, with or without the comma.

Comment #76: daphne  on  03/30  at  06:45 PM

Except this one, which actually amused me:

  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.

I was amused firstly because I like to see a Manly American Christian say that an Islamic Chinese nation is his true ideal.

Wait, what? I thought Freepers were The Base, which means they’re supposed to hate abortions, communists, and muslims (because they’re all terrorists and/or hate freedom, of course). So I guess in their world, the list of hated things goes:

1. Women
2. Terrorists
3. Communists
4. Killing babies

wow.

And again with the women ruling…must be part of the Freeper Canon of This is Real Totally We’re Serious

It’s funny because there’s so much logic fail and delusion.

Comment #77: HeatherMae  on  03/30  at  06:49 PM

Yes, Daphne, the problem is that most Conservatives come from the basic position that “I find things different than me icky and scary” and try to construct elaborate rationales as why everyone should find different things icky and scary, which results in world-views constructed with Rube Goldbergian complexity.  Most moderates-to-liberals I know, however, come from the basic position that “I find things different than me cool or interesting” and tend to accept differences with open curiosity.

Comment #78: tannenburg  on  03/30  at  06:50 PM

I think the most painful thing about this entire “article” is having to watch several of the Freeper women trying to simultaneously defend their basic right to vote while exerting that they are not feminists. Most of this is taking place between the lines, but it’s still completely obvious. Example:

Brad’s Gramma: Not in this house….I “tell” and I use that phrase VERY lightly….Gramps how to vote. I have FR…he doesn’t.

mamelukesabre: Keep up the good work! And make sure he don’t get outa line.

Brad’s Gramma: Naaaaaaaa….he’s definitely the “boss” around here. He just comes to me for ... clean laundry, how to vote, um, stuff. wink

Comment #79: Katie Joy  on  03/30  at  07:15 PM

Lust and anger are both emotions, last time I checked.

Lust and anger are good emotions ‘cause they’re manly emotions. Stuff like compassion and love and empathy and fairness are all girly and, thus, yucky.

Something like that.

Comment #80: Matt T.  on  03/30  at  07:25 PM

Blame it on New Jersey. They gave women and blacks the right to vote in their original state constitution of 1776.

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

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

Comment #81: Skip Towne  on  03/30  at  07:58 PM

Wow!  Seems like the latest attacks on women from the right are that they are emotions.  I knew a makor offensive was coming.  Didn’t consider it could be this one—again.

Comment #82: scratchy888  on  03/30  at  08:30 PM

If I cared enough, I’d go and see exactly how much of this was cribbed from Philip Wylie, a nutso 50s scifi author (very well represented in my high school library, thankyou) who believed that all of the country’s problems back then—not stomping the russkies, longhaired beat poets, whining about the environment—were the result of then-contemporary women raising a generation of sissy-men.

(He also has this even weirder book where some interdimensional force separates men and women onto two different planes; the mens’ world has a healthy, cleansing limited nuclear war; the women’s world peacefully institutes world government but can’t maintain the machines. The the protagonists’ erotic dreams bring the planes back together.)

Comment #83: paul  on  03/30  at  08:31 PM

The name OneVike was a big tip off for me (in addition to being a Freepie post). Some people who highlight their Norse heritage do so for racial purity reasons. There are a lot of Norse/Viking themed names on white supremist sites.

While the quotes set my teeth on edge, I console myself with the notion that their reaction is steeped in fear and impotence. However, a lot of violence has roots in fear and impotence…

Comment #84: HooksInMyHead  on  03/30  at  08:41 PM

Megan at Jezebel linked to Pam’s story.  They’re at four pages of comments so far.

Comment #85: PWI  on  03/30  at  09:06 PM

Women elected Hitler?
Joshua on 03/30 at 08:56 AM

No one elected Hitler. The Nazi Party, as a whole, came close to becoming a majority in the Reichstag, sort of, and certainly was the largest Right party between 1930 and 1933, but never matched IIRC the Social Democrats.

Hitler himself never stood for any elections; in a parliamentary system, which the Reichstag essentially was, one gets to be Prime Minister (known as “Chancellor” in the Weimar Republic) by being the leader of the majority in the legislature—but one has to be a legislator oneself, and that would mean running in some petty bailiwick somewhere, whereas Hitler felt he was entitled to rule the whole country. By the time he did so, his party was already declining in Reichstag elections.

But by then, what with the Depression and all that, Germany had been in a state of declared emergency for some years and the President, Hindenburg, had special powers in such cases. Von Papen, who was IIRC leader of the Center (Catholic) Party at the time, thought putting Hitler in as Chancellor would be clever and persuaded Hindenburg to do this. The rest is as they say, history.

To be somewhat grudgingly fair to the Freeper quoted way above, it was true that a lot of women did support the Nazis, and supposedly because they found Hitler so personally mesmerizing somehow. A lot of other women didn’t of course.

Also he promised German women they could get married—under Depression conditions men couldn’t earn enough to properly support a wife and family and so they didn’t get married, and the women had to seek work themselves. Well, when Hitler took over, lots of marriages did take place. The new brides went right on working because wages did not rise. (There were more job opportunities—but the only reason any workers paychecks went up would be because they now worked longer hours. Eventually the expanding war industries raised demand for labor and people who worked there could hardly be criticized for deserting their old jobs, so the other jobs did raise wages somewhat to try and retain some workers.)

Obviously that “hey, you ladies can get married now!” line didn’t impress all German women, even before it became obvious what a hollow promise it was.

France, on the other hand, didn’t allow women to vote until the Fourth Republic, which formed after WWII.

The other countries with women voters (and the USSR where everyone voted—for the Party, or else—but they also had women soldiers, women fighter/bomber pilots, and women generals)...

..They, um—won the war. Which they didn’t start.

Thank Wonder Woman and Rosie the Riveter. And all those British Chain Home radar spotters who vectored the RAF fighters onto the incoming Luftwaffe.

Comment #86: Mark Foxwell  on  03/30  at  09:30 PM

I thought Freepers were The Base, which means they’re supposed to hate abortions, communists, and muslims (because they’re all terrorists and/or hate freedom, of course).

Oh, they not-so-secretly envy extremist Muslims; if you think about it it makes sense. If those Muslims were just more Christian, they’d be all right.

Comment #87: annejumps  on  03/30  at  09:37 PM

France, on the other hand, didn’t allow women to vote until the Fourth Republic, which formed after WWII.

I was surprised to learn this in a book about the short life and time of Robert Brasillach I was reading a few months ago, and the author explained that this was seen as a gesture towards the role French women played in the Resistance and what they endured during WW II.

Think of it:  Simone Beauvoir, Collette, Marguerite Long, Coco Chanel, etc. all couldn’t vote until after WWII.

Comment #88: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  03/30  at  10:36 PM

because women as a group will always prefer sons to daughters- to protect and provide for them, of course.

In the US, Social Security provides for you in your old age. But if you want someone to protect and care for you, you gotta have daughters. Statistically, men just don’t take care of the old people in the family; the job is almost always done by the daughter, the daughter-in-law if there are no daughters, or if a man does it he’s usually the gay brother.

(I expect a flood of people to chime in about the men they know who take care of the elderly. I’m talking about statistics, which as we all know, belong to the category at the end of lies, damn lies and statistics. The vast majority of people who care for the elderly are women, regardless of anecdotal evidence of the occasional man doing the job.)

I actually suspect very strongly that in the absence of any push from patriarchy women would prefer daughters. The urge to procreate comes in part from the desire to replicate yourself, and your daughter is more like yourself than your son, if you’re the average woman. Also, it’s kind of well known among women, to the point of being a stereotype, that adult daughters are closer to their mothers than adult sons are (we actually mock men for being close to their mothers as adults.) Plus, boys are more likely to have behavioral problems. It’s patriarchy, the systematic devaluing of women, that makes even women prefer to have sons and gives fathers inordinate power over what the mothers express as their desire.

Comment #89: Alara J Rogers  on  03/30  at  10:47 PM

Alara, in the developing world a woman’s longevity is directly related to the number of daughters that she has to assist her in household tasks and caretaking activities.  Fewer daughters means less help at home.

Comment #90: Ms Kate  on  03/30  at  11:24 PM

Kirsten said:

There has always been strong women have stood behind their men

That’s not even English.

No, dat wuz Freeper LOLcat sez wantz cheezburgerz, no wantz ickies female voterz.

Comment #91: garymar  on  03/30  at  11:38 PM

because women as a group will always prefer sons to daughters- to protect and provide for them, of course.

In the US, Social Security provides for you in your old age.

See, that’s why they hate social welfare programs: the damn feminists made the government come in and displace men from their rightful place of providing for their women.

Comment #92: Dorothy  on  03/30  at  11:45 PM

I’ve just received a copy of the movie Libertarias which I ordered over on Amazon. It tells of the Mujeres Libres (Free Women), an organisation of anarchist women who participated in the battles during the Spanish Civil War. (I suggest it to all Pandagon readers BTW… interesting in both its utopian anarchist ideals and the fact that it ends up that the anarchists sold out the women after all, just like happens often in leftist groups that aren’t explicitly feminist.)

I will take these women as voters over Freeper men any day.

Comment #93: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  02:13 AM

It’s nice to see the Freepi are finally striding bravely into the 20th Century.

Comment #94: Nil  on  03/31  at  03:07 AM

“Von Papen, who was IIRC leader of the Center (Catholic) Party at the time, thought putting Hitler in as Chancellor would be clever and persuaded Hindenburg to do this. “

von papen was much more a courtier or a back room dealer. He was a prussian parlamentarian for Zentrum and had a relationship with Zentrum like Zell Miller wih the dems.

And of course Hitler was never elected. (He wasn’t a german citizen until 1932). As far he was elected, it was not the fault of female voters.

Comment #95: _IM_  on  03/31  at  04:18 AM

I don’t know anything about the gold standard, but I do love little kittens.
ACG on 03/30 at 03:02 PM

BWAHAHA!!!

I try to let my natural sweetness shine through, but my beard gets in the way…

Comment #96: Floyd  on  03/31  at  04:32 AM

because women as a group will always prefer sons to daughters- to protect and provide for them, of course.

If I were only allowed to have one child, I’d make the sensible choice of having a daughter, simply to carry on my lineage.  If there are more women than men, almost every single woman can manage to have a child if she wants too.  Even if my daughter couldn’t find a husband, she could probably find some sleazy guy who would be willing to co-operate for 15 minutes.  And, it’s guaranteed to be her real kid and my real grandkid (unless IVF is used, but that’s rare).  If I have a son and there are already too many men, my chances of having a biological grandchild or even adopted one go way down.  Even if my son found a woman who would cheat on her husband, there’s much less chance that the kid will actually be his, and he probably wouldn’t get custody either way.  Now, I’m certainly not saying that a biological kid is better than an adopted one, but I’m saying that even according to his own logic, this guy should want to have a daughter if he can have one kid.

Comment #97: bananacat  on  03/31  at  09:27 AM

It’s nice to see the Freepi are finally striding bravely into the 20th Century.

Except the point is that they are not.

Comment #98: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  03/31  at  12:20 PM

The name OneVike was a big tip off for me (in addition to being a Freepie post). Some people who highlight their Norse heritage do so for racial purity reasons. There are a lot of Norse/Viking themed names on white supremist sites.

  Which is ironic, since Viking women had many more rights than their peers in other European societies and participated in public life with men to a lot greater extent.

Comment #99: Redisca  on  03/31  at  02:25 PM

Watch old 50’s clips and it is amazing how few women are sounding off or are even in evidence - which really is refreshing.

Doesn’t that say everything, right there? Essentially, what they want is not to have to acknowledge that women exist (until they want to stick their dick in one, of course).

Comment #100: kristin  on  03/31  at  03:38 PM

So there we have it. Freeper men are the enemy. We should give them no quarter. Freeper women should be turned to our side. Those who can not be turned should be banished to reeducation camps where they will starve unless they band together and establish a sensible autonomous political order.

Freeper men? Up against the wall.

Comment #101: Bacopa  on  03/31  at  06:30 PM

I actually suspect very strongly that in the absence of any push from patriarchy women would prefer daughters. The urge to procreate comes in part from the desire to replicate yourself, and your daughter is more like yourself than your son, if you’re the average woman. Also, it’s kind of well known among women, to the point of being a stereotype, that adult daughters are closer to their mothers than adult sons are (we actually mock men for being close to their mothers as adults.) Plus, boys are more likely to have behavioral problems.

Y’see, that’s exactly the kind of spurious female pseudo-“logic” that have the Freepers convinced that women lack the mental capacity to intelligently discuss important issue.  For your edification, here’s a classical syllogism that a Freeper might use to show you the error of your ways:

1.  One gender is better than the other.
2.  I am male.
3.  Therefore, men are better than women.

(Classical syllogisms are three-part, but you can add an optional “4.  Duh.” if you wish.)

See what you can accomplish when you think like a man and don’t let emotion cloud your logic?

Comment #102: cminus  on  03/31  at  09:01 PM

Honestly ... these ‘Freeprs’ would be quite well received in modern china ans Russia, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libiya, Yemen, Oman, Kirgystan, The Turkmen, Armenia, Azerbijan - well we know where they belong.

Comment #103: BimBeau  on  04/01  at  10:24 AM

The absurdity starts when the wanker author self-identifies as a axe-wielding Viking who sacks, pillages and rapes the saxon villages - yet also is against “emotion” in politics. And it never lets up.

Comment #104: atheist  on  04/01  at  12:58 PM

And I’m ok with my wife being able to vote, as long as she votes for who I tell her too.

There’s something beautiful about this fail of a human being thinking he should be the boss of another one because she’s un-bepenised when he can’t even get basic English spelling correct.

’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.

At least this one’s honest?

How vile.

Comment #105: Hekie  on  04/02  at  08:55 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.