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

A Evoultionary Exsplanation for the differences in the ways men and women vote

As one of the few people these days that actually thinks for himself I have been grappling with the issue of intelligence for a while. Could it be that my intuition in nearly two decdes of life is right: are african-americans less intelligent than europeans on average? what about women?

By intelligence i mean IQ. Peoplle like to make a point about saying that "there are many different intelligences." well my reaction is mixed. If your talking about one's communuciation i'd say and i'd be backed by the evidence in saying that women are better at communicating. It appears east africans are better long distance runners than east asians. But these are not intelligences.

So i think that there is one identfiable thing that we call intelligence/IQ. IQ measures one ability to do things like invent a new technology, get a PHD in chemistry, etc. Some people who get very upset about people who ackowledge the black-white IQ gap often forget it seems or don't realize that IQ is by no means the be all end all. It doesn't mean that you are a worse person or an inferior person or that you won't get married.



Though the IQ gap between men and women is far, far less pronounced in the data and in life than the black-white IQ gap is, one sences a slight gap nonetheless. I certainly believe men are naturally more inclined towards poltics and the external world-poltics, war, sports- in general while women are far more inclined towards there direct surroundings-there friends, children, etc. But i also feel that men have a more robust intelligence that is better on average at seeing and sencsing complexties and articulating them. We know that men are less emotion in there thinking and that women are far more emotional and intuitive, more swayed by intagible breezes of emotion and feeling than men. Inturn men's temperment makes them more suited to not just war and more physically strenous occupations like lumbering, construction, etc but also, and this is more controversial, towards poltics and goverance. Now before i exsplain why i believe this fully, let me state the following:


Since men have large bodies and muscles more equipt for war and strenous farming work, women been the child bearers obviously for millenia have been the ones inside in the home with the children and men have been the ones outside, working, fighting, building. This much is obvious. Now evoultionarily her's why i think this set up has made men today more equipt and inclined toward goverance and poltics. Since men were the one's, as i said, outside, warring, they have also since ancient times been the ones governing communitys while there wives stayed in there indivual homes. The men went to war and thus after and between and before wars they were the ones who both ran the armys and naturally inturn ran societys, wheather that be in a dictorial manner or a democratic way.

And since men have, more or less, exclusively been running and governing there societys for time on memorial, it would be logical to think evoultionarily, that men's minds and temperments, over millions of years, became inclined and suited to the task of goverance than women who for all those millions of years where inside, by nesscity, in the domestic sphere while men governed. If you reject the religous view of divine creation of man and woman and all of earth, this would seem to be the obvious exsplanation for why men are so heavily and disportionatly intrested and involved in poltics and goverance.

And in addition, consider that the male temperment is much more suited for poltics, men are more domineering they want to be in control more and hate being under the control of women far more than women do vice versa, men are also far more competive than women and compeition is central to poltics as it is inherently central in sports and war (2 areas where men are unquestioned to be more naturally more equipt and inclined than women).

Feminists would claim as a responce, that women aren't less intrested and inclined and invested in poltics, they are just as inclined towards and intrested in poltics as men, but that men are oppressing them and preventing women from partxcipating in goverment and poltics as much as men. This claim may have been true in 1939 or 1956 but it's not true as of 2010 (aka now). Women are encouraged to parcipate in poltics and goevrnance as they and blacks have been encouraged for decades.

Now women are perhaps as passionate about poltics as men and women at the bottom of the IQ bell cover are, perhaps more poltically intrested than there male equivalents. But the nature of male IQ distruption is more polarized, with more people at the extreme ends of extremly high intelligence and extremly low intelligence. In fact the top male IQ's are higher than the top female IQ's as is the median male IQ and the lowest male IQ's. There are 10 times as many male autistics than female autistics.

Back to passion about poltics: women at all ends of the IQ/socio-economic spcetrum are very if not more passionate about poltics than man are. But they are not as intrested or informed about poltics as man are. This was something especially prevalent and observable just 16 months ago during the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. Girls/Women (i never know which to say) where very often downright hysterical and delirous with emotion in favor of then Senator Barak Obama. Across the country for months, women fainted and weeped and shouted and wept at Obama rallies often at the very sight of Obama as he entered the stage. During, Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic nation convention, millions of Americans watched on TV as Obama spoke clip after clip of women and young women shedding tears in the audience , like so many clips of young women in the audience of Beatle's concerts and Elvis concerts in the 50's and 60's. Indeed, if there is a concert, a poltical rally of great size you can be assured if any one assembled there is weeping or shouting and crying in adulation in the bleechers it is a young sweet girl and/or smitten women. Women as i say, are mmore intrested in human stories, in people, in feelings than statstics and abstracts compared to men. Compared to men, women are far less intrested in debating about the federal deficit, but they are more intrested in the new episode of Desperate Housewives. Women are more inclined towards being nurses than mathemeticians. So while men in the audience can look admirably at Obama as he speaks because they support some or all of his policies, women weep because they adolize the man though they may agree with many of his policies. A polticians personality his "vibe" is more important to women than it is to men. Women are very intuitive. They get feelings about people, they read things on a man's face and make assumptions which are often right. One of my ex-girlfriends and i where reading the book "the Female Brian" and we got to a part on female intuition and we talked and she said that she and "all women" can see everything "in a guy's face. We know about things without being told. We can feel it." This is useful and helpful for women and girls (perhaps) when it comes to there intuition about the boy there daughter brings home being no good but it can get in the way and be problematic when it comes to poltics and deciding wheather to vote for Obama (handsome, charsmatic) or McCain (old, grumpy, un-charsmatic). And all this reflected in the inquires into the differences between men and women when it comes to politics. Many studies have just asked a large samples of men and women for the reason they voted the way they did and they all show the same thing. Which is that women when exsplaining, say, why they voted for Obama rather than McCain, cited factors unrelated to policys far more than men. In effect, women have answers like this to the question of why they voted for obama a lot more than men did:

"Um, i'm voting for Obama because i think that, well, we really like need a change right now and Obama has like a very good heart and i think he has like good intention for the country and everybody and really is gonna like put our country in the right direction. He really is a good man who cares for the people and i think he has a good heart and really like really really cares about the people and the disadvantaged too"

While on average men, as i'll these studies show, give answers like:

"I voted for Obama because i think we need to get out of Iraq and because he seems to understand the problems America has alot better than Bush did. Um.....and i think he's going to spend more money here in the US rather than abroad in wars and stuff more than Bush did which is good."

I'm not saying as you can see that the average male voter is super-eloquent and informed and that the female average voter is comparably so ditzy or uninformed, the average voter of both gender i=are both pretty un-informed and unarticulate but still on average women vote on superficialy reactions to poltician than issues compared to men which makes sence from an evoultionary standpoint: mothers have to be able to decide for thousands of years whether there daughter or son's potential mate is of good charcter, so they have to get good and devlope a good isntict at making quick superficial intuitive judgments of people/men's charcters and intentions while men for thousands of years had to do that but also had to judge/vote for men on a more cerberal, un-superficial basis while they ran society for thousands of years. In other words for thousands of years, the kind of judgments analgous to voting for a president today that women exsperienced was judging the charcter of there progenies potential friends or mates while men for thousands of years had to do both that and had to make judgments much more similiar to modern voting while they ran society and had to vote among there gender which other man should be tribeleader or whatever.

Thus it would make sence that women that having only in the last, more or less, century gained the right to vote would have a more primitive/superficial/visceral mode of judging/voting for or against polticians.

Men have been running societies and choosing which man should get the top job for thousands of years while women just started less than a 100 years ago.





So leaving aside wheather men have a more robust or complex intelligence than women on average, i think its clear, from a evoultionary stand point, that women have (on average ofcourse) minds less inclined and equpt towards poltics, voting and popular democracy. They may be better at decteting bad charcter or bad traits in men as potential husbands but they are worse on average at anyalzing the issues and voting on that basis alone for a candiate.

By the way, i forsee the criticism that "well, men are not enterily rational voters either, they vote on superficialities too." This is completly true. Men today as they have for centurys promoted/voted for other men on primitive/superficial basis' such as a candiate is bald or strong or weak or old or young or married or single. Ofcourse, this is human nature. I just think that men on, average, consider non-superficial aspects like issues, etc. more than women.

And finally, let me make clear that i am not calling women inferior. I am saying that evoultion is to blame and who knows, maybe women will take over and/or dominate the poltical spehere for the next thousand years and by the year 3010 men will be less inclined and equipt for voting on the issues alone.