Before the Thought Police lock me up...has women's suffrage benefitted America?

The Exceptions to the Generalization: sexy tea party leader & conservative St. Louis radio host, Dana Loesch

Abstract: Before the thought police jail me: would American democracy be worse off if hysterical broads passing out at Obama rallys couldn't vote? whatever your moral beliefs are about women's suffrage, has American democracy benefited from womens suffrage? take it as a thought exsperience. look at a line up of presidential potraits and see what happens after around WW1 (1919). they all get more handsome and alot dumber.why?


I have not been happy to find out as i grow into adulthood that women are really not how feminists have potrayed them. It has gotten to such a point where i can now say, without doubt, that women simply do not have, nearly, the inclination that men do, nor the temperment, for poltics. Sure, some women care about poltics-but they are such a tiny minority and usually there poltics is that of Naomi Klein liberalism. But the average women your likely to meet or know 99.8% of the time is not at all intrested in poltics in anything but the most cursory manner. It simply bores them to death. "Why would you care about such things, so far outside your day to day life?" they think. Espousing poltical ideas that cut against the grain, wheather it be at a dinner party or in a office place, to women, is, nearly, insane. Why risk fitting in just to make a point about poltics? It doesn't make sence to females who are more consumed by fitting in and getting along to go along. Women insticivly avoid the confrontation and debate that is (or atleast, should or once was) at the center of our democracy. They are bored to death by actual policy talk and simply don't talk poltics beyond the level of saying things like "Ya, i really like Obama, he seems like a really good guy.". Women are very good at, or so they have claimed to me, at reading men's faces and gaining intuitive feelings or "vibes" about men as good or bad or providers or lazy bums or moochers or losers, so on, so fourth. This may be a important evoultionary skill for women when it comes to finding mates or knowing who to not let there daughters date but a problematic tendency of evaluatation when it comes to women voting in the age of television. I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, how women assesed Obama and why they voted for him. Often, in fact probably most of the time, women's votes can be mostly accounted for as part of a paticularily female herd mentatality that can effect there voting patterns either way in elections, but also there "vibe" about a candiaite passed on mere superficialitys is certainly also a factor. Thus i kept hearing from women, the words, "he seems like a good man" when they spoke about Obama and way they supported him. Sure, there votes aren't totally devoid of substance. They usually have some views about some issues. Women, many studies have soldified, are more naturally, and quite predictably, socialistic than men. Women, i think have a harder time making desisions that good statesmen have to make: whether to waterboard a terrorist in custody, whether to secure the border, whether to grant 20 million poor, uneducated, unskilled illegal immigrants amnesty and so on, there bleeding feminine hearts pull them towards descisions that are bad for America but sastify their motherly, noturing urges that pull on there heartstrings with such issues.Speaking of women, they also it seems to me tend to be less nationalistic and more susciptible to naively idealistic one-world outlooks that consume the idea of national intrest utterly and lead women to, misplace there womenly empathy, into giving 20 million illegals unlimited free non-emergency health care on the tab of the American tax payers. This isn't to say ofcourse that women aren't conservatives and are always wrong. Though female conservatives do tend to be more into bitching about homophobia and racism than male conservatives-which is a problem with them, especially Sara Palin. And women are worse arguing, for the lack the confronational, compeitive spirit that is so essential to masculinity and when combined with IQ's upwards of 130 produce William F. Buckley jr.'s and Theodore Roosevelts. I usually hesitate to speak of women like this way cause I always end up thinking about a Michelle Bauchman or Dana Loesch. I believe and i know to be true the fact that there are alot of women who have the right views about things like gender roles (they like being womanly and don't feel oppressed), poltical correctness, and all the rest but they never seem to, sadly, be the females in the poltical arena and hardly voice there opinions accept on a blue moon when prodded to do so. It just doesn't seem women's natural inclination to talk poltics.
It seems to me that women are more naturally inclined to be much more invested and intrested on there immediate lives-meaning there husband, there kids, there friends, there mailman, there dishwasher, there garden, etc. While men, naturally, have a wider scope of intrests that extends beyond there personal everyday lives into the outside, external worlds of sports and poltics. Notice how few women participate in fantasy football. And really all commentating about poltics is is the same male If-I-ruled-the-world provided in fantasy football but for, usually, higher IQ males. (And you could make a case for investing in the stock market being another such thing.) This disparity in intrests seems to go along with evoultion and everything we know about human history and what roles women and men have played in its course. Outside the last, more or less, 100 years women have simply stayed inside and men's sphere has been outside, atleast symbocally. Men have been the bread-winners and the ones who conducted goverment while women ran internal family life. Men thus, it would seem likely, devolped the agressive, compeitive, forthright traits needed to particpate in goverment/democracy that are displayed in debates. And by the way, how many women are on the average college debating team? The fact is is that males dominantate poltics and goverment and will continue to, barring the instuition of gender quotas, continue to not because bands of female would-be candiates for office are being turned away because they have breasts but because men, simply want to run for and hold office more than women.

Another Exception to the Generlzation: sexy conservative writer, S.E. Cupp

A distinction perhaps should be made in the case of wuite localized goverment. Women, as i say, tend to be more locally orienented than men. They care mostly just about there direct sorroundings-there towns and/or countys and the issues therein. So women often run for local office more than national or state elected office and often do good jobs at both. But women have more trouble at the larger national stage. Ofcourse, there have been good female heads of states, paticularily, at times of war. Indira Ghandi, Golda Meheir, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth the Great (of Russia) where all great leaders and especially tough (and in my own ideal democracy they would all have a place to vote and run for office i should note). Sara Palin though seems more typical of the average women who goes into politics. She began taking up a spot on her local PTA in Wasilla, Alaska then ascended to mayor of the small town and then eventually to governor of a small (in population) state which is, lets admit, a poltical backwater which resembles what is county in a promient contiental American state more than an actual state like California or Illinois. Then Palin is nominated for Vice President by John McCain and she is completly underprepared for the national poltical stage.
Palin seemed to have never thought beyond Alaska and Alskaian issues and poltics her entire adult life by early 2008. It was little remarked upon by quite palable that the only issues she had any sort of command upon where Alskaskian issues. How many times did she fall back upon speaking about drilling in ANWR in interview during the campaign, often mentioning drilling in the artic more than once in answering questions with nothing even remotely to do with drilling for oil. How many times did Palin talk, almost incessantly, about being Alaskian and how she felt people viewed her and her fellow Alaskian to be nomads in the lower 48? I can hardly recall a interview with Palin inwhich she didn't go on a tagent about how people from the contiental United States think "us in Alaskia are all idolated and don't know whats going on, when where just like them and read all the same new and everything!". Then besides the Alaska issues, the only other issues she talked about with any proficiency at all or genuine intrest or flair where Sara Palin issues, things related directly to her and her family such as autism (because of her autistic infant son, Trigg). But all those "issue" related topics like drilling for oil and funding for autism research, where brought up by Sara when the McCain camp was forcing her to talk policy with the press in the 08' campaign. After the election everything changes and Palin dropped all that boring issue stuff for girl talk drama and gossiping fueding. She let her libido out and started giving interview after interview talking not a word about issues just getting back at Katie Couric and the evil media conspiring against her to depict her as stupid. She has appeared on TV since Obama's victory only to berate David Letterman for making a racy joke about her daughter, to go after ex-McCain staffers calling her dumb, and going after the media in general. Palin's book, "Going Rogue" has no policy-content or ideas in it, it's just a bunch of a school girl gone poltical's vendettas.
On a seperate note, if you watch Sara Palin's infamous interview with Katie Couric you'll see there's a kind of ackwardness between the two women as they walk and talk. You get the sence that there both sort of acting and that there working as if on the job and that they so want (atleast in Palin's case) to just cut this poltical crap and have some girl-talk. Especially when Couric asks Palin "Where do you get your information?" and Palin balks, as if caught of gaurd and says "Ya know, like everywhere" and Couric rebuts, "Ya, well like where?" and Palin, looking iratated, repeats, patheticly, looking oh so desperate, "Ya know like everywhere. I read em' all" and Palin looks as if she is in a nightmare and just wants to wake up. You feel at that moement that there is something grotesquely unnaturely about what your watching and that Sara Palin does not belong there and that she belongs in a kitchen in Wasilla and that asking her poltical questions is almost cruel and that feminism and demographic oppurtinism by the McCain camp has put her in a position she manifestly doesn't belong. You also feel that, if, there wasn't a camera around Couric and Palin as they walked around together or if they couldact as they wanted to that the two women wouldn't mention poltics at all, but Palin would ask Couric where to get good pant-suits and both women would complain about how tuff there scedeules where and how they didn't get enought "me" time and chat over other womanly topics i know little to nothing of and don't want to know more about. Katie Couric like Palin seems so manifestly unnatural, almost like a robot programmed and run by her, certainly, male producers and writers. She like Palin is a women who comes home to her kids and wants to take a nice long shower, watch Desperate Housewives, get a pedicure and go to bed rather than spend an hour reading National Review Online like the politico guys that hold up both Couric and Palin.
Finally, the obvious reason why the relationship women and poltics is so tenous and problematic is biologically obvious at the end of the day. Women give birth to children, and usually, with the exception of Palin it seems, are the leaders of there familys and devote a great deal of energy and focus into there children and derive, as feminists are inclined to forget, a great deal of joy and fuliment from doing so. They are thus often too pre-occupied to pay much attention to politics. Hence men do poltics and war. I mean could no one stand up in the 2008 election and say that the nomination of Sara Palin was ludcrious on the grounds that (along with being woefully uninformed) she was the mother of 5 children including newborn with autism requiring many hours of care? Was she going to breast feed in the oval office? What if a dirty bomb goes off in a Seattle Port during a Palin adminstration but she happens to be breast feeding Trigg, are the generals to wait in the hall until Miss. Presidents gets her blouse back on? And don't even mention how irrational and moody she may be on certain days every month and how that may effect her behavoir in office (a subject which would be of great importance to know if she ever once again became contender for national office as i pray she never again is).

Michelle Bachmann, attractive Republican Senator from Minnesota

In the end, we can say for certain that womens suffrage has given rise to the election of a new breed of airhead, pretty boy poltics that is within a inch of destroying this nation. When men vote alone, the appearance of politicians is a factor but not so great. However when you bring women into the democratic equatation, among many other ripple effects, the attractiveness of polticians becomes essential. Another factor, is that men don't speak as openly when poltics no longer is a backroom game for the boys (and there wives are now in the room peering over them). Women's suffrage gave rise to the sloganism and the candiate as preacher/saviour/celebrity thing epitomized by Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. Suddenly, you had to make "women feel comfortable" to be electable meaning you had to look like Mitt Romney not John Adams and also you couldn't come off as "anger" or "too agresive" you had only speak in fluffy neblous cliches and platitude about "hope", "change" and "yes we can". Also you couldn't get into details or really debate issues poltician to poltician the way Douglas and Lincoln did because that would bore women. Yes, women's suffrage has almost certainly produced a slew of terrible polticians and Presidents and has turned American politics essentially into a casting call for charcters in a TV Soap Opera or into American Idol, where former tenny boppers vote for the more attractive candiate with the more preferable facial features. The young women once crying and swooning and fainting at the Usher concert, in feminine hysterical adulation, become the women crying, swooning and fainting at the Obama rally or the John Edwards rally, passing out as the superstar enters stage left, weeping as he says "Thank you, Thank you" and begins his speech. They have turned our poltics into a rockstar event, gutted it of debate and substance entirely, all style and cliche. Now a poltician can't win if they come of as "mean" or "uncomapasionate" or "agressive", so they all must engage in inane, vapid happy talk. Women can't stand negative speeches so everything must sunny and platitude (aka Obama-rhetotic). They vote for poltician who tell them what they and we want to hear rather than what we need to hear.
Male voters do not get caught up in poltician's "charisma" or their "charm". They don't say they voted for Jimmy Carter or Barak Obama, cause they think they have "really really good hearts" or because "they seem like really good men who really care about the people". Thats too gay for men. Men vote on issues which isn't to say that men aren't sometimes uninformed but atleast they don't vote on looks. Ofcourse if a short, bald politician runs against a tall,handsome guy it will effect mae voters but not nearly to the extent it will effect women voters. And men don't react against candiates who are aggresive in there speakings style. Men don't demand happy talk from there polticians in fact they hate the "yes we can" bullshit. That's why no, women's suffrage has not benefitted American demcracy at all. Ofcourse, once again, this isn't to say all women are dumb or uninformed, they're are many very intelligent women. In my ideal democracy, there would be a mechanism for brillant women like Maggy Thatcher to become enfranchised and to run for office and the vote wouldn't be given out as a right to all men either. You would have to earn the right to vote in my democratic utopia by displaying your commitment to democracy and your taking citizenship seriously by knowing the issues. So if we could, by whatever means, find out which citizens of the United States don't and do know where Iraq is on a map or who Ronald Reagan or the FED is, i would have no problem barring those who didn't know either from voting. I think the Supreme Court should make sure that these questions for the right to vote where fair and non-bias.

Democracy is a challendge not a gaurntee

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings of contemporary America is about that subject which we are supposed to know the most about: democracy. The liberals have hijacked the Founding Fathers and what they "believed" and have, essentially, turned those men into bland, wooden figures. One of the most consquential misconceptions the new ilk of liberal historians have created is about the Founding Fathers and Democracy. Students learn that the Founders where just pro-democracy. That's all. No nuance, no caveat. The truth is that the Founders where completly against the pure one-man one-vote democracy we have today, wherein voting is a unalienable right of women, gays, African-Americans, everyone. They conceived voting as we conceive of driving. It's something that only those who are able to drive well enough that should have the right to drive so that we have safety on the roads. With Democracy they belived if everyone got the vote, no matter how little they care about poltics or know, that democracy would be as hazard as letting everyone from 5 upward to drive. As a way of making sure only the most informed particpated in democracy they limited to the white male property owners of the gentry. Women where not inclined to be meant for poltics or war, blacks, to them, didn't have the intelligence and the poor white male masses couldn't nesscarily be trusted not to get greedy and lazy and vote themselves the uppercrusts wealth by fiat.

Democracy was not thought of nearly as highly as today. To be a democrat in 1772 was to be for mob role, to be for chaos and the sucide of a civilation. Indeed, the Founders thought pure democracy, nothing short of, sucidal. They believed that a poor democracy would destroy America over time as the masses given the vote would eventually figure out that they could just vote themselves money and descend into the duldudrums of socialism, class warfare, communism, etc.

So what did the Founders want? They want a hybrid. They wanted a combiatation of democracy and monarchy. They thought that balance was essential. That sense of balance is utterly lost today. No one would even think of requiring Americans to know where Iraq is on map (even if we could logistically find that out) as a requirment for voting. Making sure only citizens who take democracy seriously and take the time to study the issues are those who in the Founders eyes where entitled to voting.

We really, i would argue, are suffering from our ungrounded, chronically lofty view of democracy. A nation, ideally, at bare mininimum should see democracy as a chllendge for an electrorate rather than a gaurntee of national prosperity. We seem to think that democracy ensures success and that ones you go democratic nations go on auto pilot, up, up, up and away into the straphoric heights of national honor and glory. The Founding generation and many generations that followed them, as i say, saw themselves as having a duty to show that the European aristos where wrong and that the American system of democracy and self goverment could work without descending into mob role and socialism as so many pessimists predicted. We lost that sense of proving the critiques wrong. Its crucial that Americans of the 18th and 19th and early 20th century understand the downsides and potential downsides of democracy and that made them better, more dutiful and serious "proffesional citizens" as Ralph Nader would say. After America became so prosperous and the gasy poltical rhetoric of self congradulations emerged as a unbearable mainstay of American poltics. After polticians began wearing "We're Number 1!" sterophome big hand thingy, Americans forgot the potential downsides of democracy gone awry.

For instance, older generations of Americans didn't think that all peoples where meant for self government and democracy (like say the Hiatians or Africans). Leaving aside there view of Hiatians abilities to self govern themselves, America's ethnic and religous/cultural composition and roots where essential to the success of the American democracy. Democracy is fragile and in order to succed its citizens must police their vices and desires with unusual discpline. Citizens must take there voting rights seriously as a responcibilty as well as a sort of proffesion, where they all have to be informed and vote on non-veceral but cerebral grounds.

The need for these charcterstics of displine, steely self control, moral restraint, personal responcibility, a sence of community and a responcibility to the whole, which are all central to working democracy where provided in America by the Puritans in paticular, who pratised succsful small self goverment well before 1776. The Puritans showed that people could manage there own affairs as small villages and hamlets was a obvious example of posssibilities for our founding fathers many of with came out of PUritan New England such as John Adams.
The Puritans where made for democracy and self goverment because with freedom comes the responcibility for a citizenry to control and restrain itself and its vices and veceral desires. Democracy falls apart at the seems if everyone abuses freedom, citizens must not see freedom and/or democracy as licence to do whatever they want. Citizens must have there own morals and values (which Puritanism provided) in order to make democracy work.

Those Puritan values are so faded and we see the effects in the decline of our democracy. I wouldn't deny that women's suffrage and the Voting Rights Act have probably hurt our democracy. No one can say that our democracy would be better, more informed, if blacks didn't have the vote or women. And that is taboo as hell! But truth is truth. African Americans are woefully uninformed about poltics, not very intrested, they vote on race usually, etc. and this obviously is not a asset of American Democracy

Thoughts on the importance of not rewarding Paris Hilton's with noteriety

I'm as many 19 year olds thinking about what path to take in life as far jobs are concerned. And i keep having in different variations the same argument in my head.

Me: i should go where my heart is: in policy. thats what i'm best and it's good for the country and for me as an American. It matters if i grow old in a majority latino nation that is much poorer or if i can prevent that or help do so.

Me 2: Well thats all well and good but do you know what the average salary is at a conservative think tank? You'll be poor and you'll have no notoriety and you'll regret it your entire life, while self intrested people are in the upperclass and your in the huge new ghettoized underclass, getting surgery from faceless beucrats, waiting in line behind a crowd of illegals speaking spanish, etc, etc. It's going to be a life of drugery fighting for "the common good". And Conservative is dead no matter how eloquently you make your point, you said you it yourself, the success or failure of conservativism is not about debates over ideas, it's all about demographics and wheather America continues to transform itself into mexico via immigration. The new Americans dont read National Review (if it even survives) and they dont care about whats good for America, they care about whats good for there racial group (latinos, balcks) and mindless vote liberal. Conservativism is doomed and America too likely. you know so yourself. Why go down with these two doomed ships when you can cash in on your far-sightedness and perceptivess and your knowledge of current events & trends, in the stock market for instance? I know you like to write, but it doesn't matter if you have to survive what you like to do. If you want write on the side. But first take care of your life. Your not going to have your parents to fall back upon foveever, get real about life on your own now and get practical about careers now, focus your focus!

But you must understand in 1912 i would go into the now unglamorous fields of work, science, policy anlyst, but now that Paris Hilton's are awarded fame, fuck the common good, just get rich, hot and famous, baby!!!!!

once a society awards and lionizes Paris Hilton with fame for doing nothing but being a rich slut and not just ignore but villifies the greatest scientists and inventors we have people like James Watson (who got fired for telling the truth about IQ and race) a nation is doomed because you set down the wrong values for young people who embrace decadence over goodness.