On 8/11/2025 at 11:34 AM, Cameroni said:

 

Unfortunately not. The 1930s were when the feminists really started to make a mark.

 

In fact Hitler was a feminist. In the 3rd Reich women were treated equally under the constitution and allowed to vote and work.

 

Have we learned nothing from the horrors of Nazism?

In 1936, a law was passed banning certain high-level positions in the judicial system to women (notably judge and prosecutor, through Hitler's personal intervention^[28]) and the medical field. Female doctors were no longer allowed to practice, until their loss had a harmful effect on health needs and some were recalled to work; also dissolved was the Association of Medical Women, which was absorbed into its male counterpart.^[25

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany}

"In 1934, a Numerus Clausus was introduced to limit to ten percent the number of women in incoming university classes, reversing the trend in effect since 1918. In the years immediately after the Numerus Clausus, fifty percent of male Gymnasium graduates found places at the university but only one in seven female Gymnasium graduates did. The number of female university students nationwide fell drastically from 18,315 in the spring semester 1932 to 5,447 in 1939. (17) 

 

^{https://www.thefreelibrary.com/From%2Badventure%2Band%2Badvancement%2Bto%2Bderailment%2Band%2Bdemotion%3A%2Beffects%2Bof...-a0230778701?utm_source=chatgpt.com}

26 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Richard Evans is just another historian trying to make a name for himself by being a revisionist and claiming the opposite of accepted fact.

 

The fact remains that almost 50% of Hitler's vote was female. Had Hitler not received these female votes he would never have been elected.

 

"In regards to the role played by women voters in Hitler's rise to power, Helen Boak notes that the "NSDAP had been gaining proportionately more support from women than from men from 1928 onwards.

 

The larger increase in the share of women's votes than in that of men's votes cast for the NSDAP from 1928 owes much to the party's growing prominence and respectability, as the party's dynamism, the contrast of its young leadership with the elder statesmen of the other parties, its growing strength, the disintegration of the liberal and local, conservative parties and the general disillusionment and dissatisfaction with what the [Weimar] Republic had brought or failed to bring all contributed to the reasons why German men and women turned to the NSDAP...Because of the preponderance of women in the electorate, the NSDAP received more votes from women than from men in some areas before 1932 and throughout the Reich in 1932. 

 

In the 1931 September elections, 3 million women voted for NSDAP candidates, almost half of the total of 6.5 million votes cast for the NSDAP."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany

You don't seem to understand the significance of this sentence:

"Because of the preponderance of women in the electorate, the NSDAP received more votes from women than from men in some areas before 1932 and throughout the Reich in 1932."

On 8/11/2025 at 11:34 AM, Cameroni said:

 

In fact Hitler was a feminist. In the 3rd Reich women were treated equally under the constitution and allowed to vote and work.

More dishonesty from you. I've already show how women under Nazism  were discriminated against in the educational field. Here's a quote from Hitler on the subject:

September 1934 Speech to the National Socialist Women’s League:

“The slogan ’emancipation of women’ was invented by Jewish intellectuals … If the man’s world is said to be the State … the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. … Our women’s movement … has but one single point, and that point is the child…”

https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-on-the-role-of-women-1934/

Anybody who reads the whole speech which is linked to can see how dishonest your characterization of HItler's so-called feminism is.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Richard Evans is just another historian trying to make a name for himself by being a revisionist and claiming the opposite of accepted fact.

 

The fact remains that almost 50% of Hitler's vote was female. Had Hitler not received these female votes he would never have been elected.

 

"In regards to the role played by women voters in Hitler's rise to power, Helen Boak notes that the "NSDAP had been gaining proportionately more support from women than from men from 1928 onwards.

 

The larger increase in the share of women's votes than in that of men's votes cast for the NSDAP from 1928 owes much to the party's growing prominence and respectability, as the party's dynamism, the contrast of its young leadership with the elder statesmen of the other parties, its growing strength, the disintegration of the liberal and local, conservative parties and the general disillusionment and dissatisfaction with what the [Weimar] Republic had brought or failed to bring all contributed to the reasons why German men and women turned to the NSDAP...Because of the preponderance of women in the electorate, the NSDAP received more votes from women than from men in some areas before 1932 and throughout the Reich in 1932. 

 

In the 1931 September elections, 3 million women voted for NSDAP candidates, almost half of the total of 6.5 million votes cast for the NSDAP."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany

You claim Hitler was a feminist and then you have the gall to call Richard Evans a revisionist? 

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You claim Hitler was a feminist and then you have the gall to call Richard Evans a revisionist? 

 

Too much?

On 8/11/2025 at 2:21 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Barefoot and pregnant. Those were the days.

When most men didn’t managed to get laid, oh, wait a second 

On 8/11/2025 at 2:42 AM, Cameroni said:

It's these kinds of controversial ideas that Trump should be implementing, removing the vote for women would relegate the Democratic party to second place for enternity most likely, as the party is currently propped up by 18 to 30 year old females. Without them, the Democrat vote tally would fall dramatically.

 

After that is accomplished Trump could then tackle the real issue, namely removing the vote for non-home owners and thus America could embody the true ideal of Greek democracy. Not this wholly perverted version we have to contend with today.

 

For even Nietzsche knew "The equal for the equal...and the unequal for the unequal".

Nothing surprises me from what you manage to spew out on the forum anymore. We all know your hate for women, you have stated that many times 

34 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Too much?

"Too much" would mean it was an exaggeration. No. Your claim that Hitler was a feminist is a lie, pure and simple.

8 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

"Too much" would mean it was an exaggeration. No. Your claim that Hitler was a feminist is a lie, pure and simple.

Change your name to Zwiebel, you make me cry.

On 8/10/2025 at 9:24 PM, Cameroni said:

Imagine how much the world would improve if the vote were removed for women. It would pave the way to withdraw women's driving privileges, which would solve traffic congestion and improve the environment.

 

It would pave the way to remove women from the work force, discrimination laws could be reversed, which would solve the unemployment problem.

 

TV quality would probably get worse though, as women would stay at home and dictate even more what programmes are on TV.

 

Don't give them any rights! They are awful!!!!!

 

 

2 hours ago, JackGats said:

The female vote is a disaster. No civilization can survive it for long.

Move to Afghanistan 

27 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

"Too much" would mean it was an exaggeration. No. Your claim that Hitler was a feminist is a lie, pure and simple.

 

Absolutely not. Under Hitler women were allowed to vote and allowed to work. Hitler was too much of a feminist for me.

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, she does, maybe read that post again.

Yes you are quite right I'm sorry 

23 hours ago, Cameroni said:

I'm not saying women are "inferior", I actually don't think they are. Sure, you can argue about how the bell curve in IQ has more men at either extreme, and physical strength, but obviously the differences are smaller than the similarities. You can have exceptionally bright female partners in law firms, flying jets, and researching biogenetics. So it's not that women are inferior, they can do all these things, we just don't want them to do that, for policy reasons. Because once women are set up in a position of power, they favour women, their own. Why do you think women's news shows always have female experts? Women in law firms promote women partners. Angela Merkel put von der Leyen at the head of the EU.

 

The thing is, these women are smart, highly intelligent and they have with the complicity of stupid men, managed to fashion family law, employment law, the employment market, the sexual market place, and even medical research and politics in their favour. Do you think Bonnie Blue cares if she's working at destroying the fabric of society? No, her net worth is 24 million Dollars, she makes 2 million dollars a month by opening her legs for gangbangs on Only Fans. Do you think she cares if it's just and right that she can make 24 million Dollars by fornicating? No she does not. Do you think the average divorcee cares if she gets half the assets and alimony of the man she divorced, or whether it's just and fair?  No. Do you think female commentators care  if they got ther football or NBA gig because they're women? No they don't care if it's just. They just want to take advantage of the system, which feminists and weak men have allowed to be put in place.

 

It is a matter of policy, of survival of society as we know it, do we want women in charge or not? And you need to think carefully if you say yes, because they will fashion society in their favour. Just look at Scandinavia. There will be almost no children born. Not enough to replenish the workforce and taxpayers anyway. Our economies and social services will die. Marriage is already dying.

 

If the vote for women were removed, then women would stay at home, all these things could be reversed.

 

Now of course democracy was never meant for populations of 5 billion people, it was for small tribal groups and small populations where only men and property owners who were well informed would vote. Now, we have a partisan mosaic of interest groups, old people, women, blacks, hispanics, jews, young voters, women, men, and each group is trying to take advantage of the other. Here, after the vote for women is removed, the solution is to amplify the voting power of property owners. And yes, increase the voting age by all means.

 

But something has to be done, because our societies are in obvious decline and the falling birth rate means our economies will die, and services will disappear. When women take power, they will oversee a wasteland. It is our responsibility to save them and us.

Putting aside whether women overall are 'inferior', I agree with your points made. Western societies are in trouble and things are clearly in decline - all things except technological advances in things like medicine and IT - and that is your point.  Is it to be laid at the feet of 'inferior' women, or is it to be laid at the feet of scheming smart women - either way it is very clear to me that western societies have declined because of women and young immature people voting - and the inherent weakness of democracy (idiots vote too). 

 

As per your hypothesis that things will improve if women do not vote, I would say overall I would have to agree. However, being a conservative, I will readily say that because it is women who are inherently progressive and who make up a large percentage of the woke population. Likewise, stopping women from voting will remove the temptation that they fall for a lot - voting for the minorities who claim they are oppressed and are victims. 

 

However, although I agree with you, IMO the better solution is to increase the age at which people vote.  Unfortunately, trying to make more women become lawyers, doctors and scientists etc etc will not work - because they are inferior. For over 100 years women have been getting more and more equal 'rights' and opportunities. Since 1980s the majority of students at Universities have been females - and yet what jobs do the vast majority of women work in?  Nursing, Administration, Secretaries, Cleaners, Communications, etc etc.  Go look at 100 years ago (1920s) and that is the same jobs they worked in back then. Women overall have not 'progressed' into those higher roles that are based on merit - they still dont even make up 50% of politicians - and the reasons are extremely obvious. They do not have the ability and/or they dont want to. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule and there are more now that all the barriers have been removed for over 40 years, but they overall have not progressed because they cannot and dont want to.  The hardest thing to do as a Boss is to fire someone - there are very few women who can do a Boss job well when they have to sack someone, the majority do not want to work in a job where they have to do that.  A LOT of women find that once they get there or close, they actually dont want it.  That is all good IMO because they are women - but that should not IMO stop them from voting. 

 

The issue is maturity and IMO there is no such thing as a mature women until she has had a child - giving birth makes a girl become a woman - it changes them forever - physically and mentally. If the voting age was raised to say 25 there would be a lot less silly immature woke girls voting with their feelings and emotions.  Women will vote for what they think is best for their family/kids - Girls will vote for what they think is best for themselves. 

35 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

  Unfortunately, trying to make more women become lawyers, doctors and scientists etc etc will not work - because they are inferior.

 

I wish you were right. Sadly, if you look at the figures in the law for instance in the UK:

 

"Women accounted for just over 52% of practising solicitors, with the gender gap was much bigger at student and entry level. Women made up two-thirds of law graduates and 64% of newly qualified solicitors."

 

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/nearly-two-thirds-of-new-solicitors-are-women-as-gender-gap-widens

 

So with two-thirds of law graduates now being women and 64% of newly qualified solicitors being women, it is just a question of time before they will take over the legal profession. They have progressed.

 

And this is reflected in very senior female lawyers having worked and lobbied for criminal laws more favourable to women, employment laws more favourable to women, family laws more favourable to women.

 

We see the same trend in medicine btw: 

 

https://www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/more-female-than-male-doctors-for-first-time-ever-in-the-uk

 

There too women will take over. And we already have medical research disproportionately geared towards women's health, not men's health.

 

Whether or not the new female partners in law firms, and new doctors, will be as good as the male doctors were, that's another question, but there can be no doubt that the feminists have started to fashion society in their favour.

 

That's why I think rigorous anti-feminist action would be required to restore the more desirable, from our perspective, ascendancy of men. The vote for women is relatively recent and clearly things have not got better with women having the vote. From electing Adolf Hitler to providing some of the worst politicians we've ever seen, women have not greatly improved society. The opposite is the case, bar a few exceptions.

 

I would completely agree with increasing the voting age. I also think additional voting weight for owners of property and parents of children would be justifiable.

 

As it is the system will go to hell, there is no doubt about it. Not enough children being born to replenish the workforce, the taxpayers keeping all systems alive. Economies and the state will die, unless women go back home and have children. For that they need to have a reason, ie a man has to be able to make their life better financially than they are able to fashion it. 

There was I looking for the 'Asean Now' forum when I inadvertently stumbled across the 'Misogynists Are Us' forum instead.

On 8/12/2025 at 6:55 PM, JonnyF said:

Ummmmm, because the thread is about WOMEN voting. 

 

Obvious to anyone with double digit IQ.

Thread’s about women’s voting rights being questioned, not felons or immigrants. Your ‘most women’ jab implied more. Care to clarify or just here to dunk?

11 minutes ago, Digitalbanana said:

Thread’s about women’s voting rights being questioned, not felons or immigrants. Your ‘most women’ jab implied more. Care to clarify or just here to dunk?

 

I already clarified on this very thread.

 

Read it again. 

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I wish you were right. Sadly, if you look at the figures in the law for instance in the UK:

 

"Women accounted for just over 52% of practising solicitors, with the gender gap was much bigger at student and entry level. Women made up two-thirds of law graduates and 64% of newly qualified solicitors."

 

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/nearly-two-thirds-of-new-solicitors-are-women-as-gender-gap-widens

 

So with two-thirds of law graduates now being women and 64% of newly qualified solicitors being women, it is just a question of time before they will take over the legal profession. They have progressed.

 

And this is reflected in very senior female lawyers having worked and lobbied for criminal laws more favourable to women, employment laws more favourable to women, family laws more favourable to women.

 

We see the same trend in medicine btw: 

 

https://www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/more-female-than-male-doctors-for-first-time-ever-in-the-uk

 

There too women will take over. And we already have medical research disproportionately geared towards women's health, not men's health.

 

Whether or not the new female partners in law firms, and new doctors, will be as good as the male doctors were, that's another question, but there can be no doubt that the feminists have started to fashion society in their favour.

 

That's why I think rigorous anti-feminist action would be required to restore the more desirable, from our perspective, ascendancy of men. The vote for women is relatively recent and clearly things have not got better with women having the vote. From electing Adolf Hitler to providing some of the worst politicians we've ever seen, women have not greatly improved society. The opposite is the case, bar a few exceptions.

 

I would completely agree with increasing the voting age. I also think additional voting weight for owners of property and parents of children would be justifiable.

 

As it is the system will go to hell, there is no doubt about it. Not enough children being born to replenish the workforce, the taxpayers keeping all systems alive. Economies and the state will die, unless women go back home and have children. For that they need to have a reason, ie a man has to be able to make their life better financially than they are able to fashion it. 

We are in 'violent agreement' mate - your points prove my statements. Women are not equal - they will always go to where it is easiest for them to be - and they will always support and promote women above men - because they know they are inferior.  Try pivoting a little and think about this point - if a person is inferior and they know it, what will they do - the answer is what they can do. If that person is a particular type of person, what will then then do - change things and bring in more people like themselves. Women and all minority groups do that - they gravitate to where they can succeed and they then bring in others.  Likewise, if an inferior person listens to all the BS from their fellow inferiors saying that they are equal and it was just others holding them back, an inferior person will believe that. They will then do things like complain bitterly that the reason there are so few women in STEM is because they are being held back, and they will implement as many changes and advantages as they can to artificially put more women into STEM. But the truth is they are not capable - they are not being held back or barred - they are just inferior.  Meanwhile the fact that 70+% of legal graduates are female is totally ignored - they are not after equality - they are after advantage.  That 'advantage' or progress women have made in law is because of all the changes that gave them advantages over their 'oppressors' - men.  That and so many other things exists because they are inferior and know it deep down - because if they were not inferior they would reject those changes that make it easier for them - they would do it themselves and not need all that assistance and advantage. 

 

The answer for voting is to change the voting age. The answer for the 'feminist problem' is to speak the truth. They are inferior as a group in most things that humans do - but they are superior in some thing to - especially raising a family and running a house. Right now there was a 'women's day' in Thailand to commemorate the King's Mother and all Mothers. Mothers are the head of the family and they are to be revered and respected - they are in charge.  Yes they are smarter than men - but those smarts are not meant to be used to be men and do our jobs - because they are not suited mentally and physically to do those jobs. Yes there are more female than male young lawyers - but how many of them are actually better than the average male lawyer = SFA. They were given advantages and privileges and were actively given those roles for DEI reasons - they will in the end prove to be a failure - there will never be as many female QCs as male QCs.   

 

 

 

    

16 hours ago, RayC said:

There was I looking for the 'Asean Now' forum when I inadvertently stumbled across the 'Misogynists Are Us' forum instead.

The OP topic is WOMEN SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.   Just like all woke progressive Karens looking for trouble, you knew what was behind that door and you walked in and started criticising.  Get a life and stop virtue signalling.   

3 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

We are in 'violent agreement' mate

 

It's called an echo chamber for the hard of thinking.

On 8/12/2025 at 11:04 PM, Cameroni said:

Absolutely not. Under Hitler women were allowed to vote and allowed to work. Hitler was too much of a feminist for me.

Wokes are truly amazing - they have the innate ability to equate what they support and believe in with 'good' people, and deny anyone they dont like as being in any way like that - even when history itself proves them wrong (which is why they rewrite it so much).

 

Hitler was not only one of the first European leaders to strongly support women's rights with concrete legal changes, he was the first to declare laws creating National Parks and to outlaw their development - and he was the first to pass laws protecting the rights of animals to be treated humanely.  I have seen woke's heads spinning around when told those facts - especially young liberal female wokes - it is hilarious.     But But But Orange Man Bad  😅

8 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

It's called an echo chamber for the hard of thinking.

You have no idea what the meaning is - double digit IQ needed. 

Go back to your anti-Trump anti-Russia anti-Israel echo chamber where you belong. 

23 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Wokes are truly amazing - they have the innate ability to equate what they support and believe in with 'good' people, and deny anyone they dont like as being in any way like that - even when history itself proves them wrong (which is why they rewrite it so much).

 

Hitler was not only one of the first European leaders to strongly support women's rights with concrete legal changes, he was the first to declare laws creating National Parks and to outlaw their development - and he was the first to pass laws protecting the rights of animals to be treated humanely.  I have seen woke's heads spinning around when told those facts - especially young liberal female wokes - it is hilarious.     But But But Orange Man Bad  😅

Extreme misogyny and now 'Hitler wasn't so bad'.

You sir are on a roll! 

32 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

but how many of them are actually better than the average male lawyer =

 

Personally, by far the best lawyers I've met were men, and the best doctors I encountered were men. However, this is purely anecdotal evidence. If we look at the figures and see that 64% of new solicitiors are women this shows that women are outperforming men at law school. Law school is equally hard for everybody, men or women. Women are making steady progress in law and in medicine too.  

 

 As the numbers are now, the majority of lawyers and doctors will be women in 10 years time.This will mean that the law and medicine will be even more shaped to favour women. Because what all these female working lawyers and doctors have in common is that they are all feminists.

 

We have seen with Me Too and now the Tea app, what the future for men could look like. And it's not great for women either, women online are complaining men are not approaching them anymore.

 

But I think the key issue is that not enough children are being born to replenish the workforce and taxpayers, so the economies will die, social services will die. Unless drastic action somehow provides incentives for women not to become lawyers or doctors, but to have children instead.

 

But women don't want to have children with men who do not improve their lives financially. So the more well off women are financially, the smaller their incentive to marry and have children becomes.

 

Something needs to be done. We can't make social media apps disappear, but removing the vote for women would be something that could be done.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Personally, by far the best lawyers I've met were men, and the best doctors I encountered were men. However, this is purely anecdotal evidence. If we look at the figures and see that 64% of new solicitiors are women this shows that women are outperforming men at law school. Law school is equally hard for everybody, men or women. Women are making steady progress in law and in medicine too.  

 

 As the numbers are now, the majority of lawyers and doctors will be women in 10 years time.This will mean that the law and medicine will be even more shaped to favour women. Because what all these female working lawyers and doctors have in common is that they are all feminists.

 

We have seen with Me Too and now the Tea app, what the future for men could look like. And it's not great for women either, women online are complaining men are not approaching them anymore.

 

But I think the key issue is that not enough children are being born to replenish the workforce and taxpayers, so the economies will die, social services will die. Unless drastic action somehow provides incentives for women not to become lawyers or doctors, but to have children instead.

 

But women don't want to have children with men who do not improve their lives financially. So the more well off women are financially, the smaller their incentive to marry and have children becomes.

 

Something needs to be done. We can't make social media apps disappear, but removing the vote for women would be something that could be done.

You are equating volume with quality. You are wrong. The reason there are more females in some Degree courses is because they get DEI preferential selection and advantage - and they want to be lawyers (money and prestige).  They dont want to be (and know they cannot be) Engineers, Scientists, Mechanics, Mathematicians, IT Technology, etc etc etc.  I bet you that in 10 years a lot of them will have left the legal profession and males will still be the majority. Women always do that and in vastly higher numbers than males. I recall a study in Australia in early 2000s that found 74% of males who had a degree were working in that industry (it did not publish the level they were at) - but it was less than 40% of females who were working in the industry they had a degree for (cannot remember the number - but it was almost double).  Of that less than 40%, guess which two were the dominant ones - Nursing and Teaching.  The reason is that women will change careers if they dont like a job, and they start families, and they just dont want to (or cant) work in that industry. Men will suck it up and suffer through - providers and all that.

 

Women should be able to vote - but not immature people - increase the voting age to 25 and the things you mentioned will dramatically improve.  The majority of women do not want to be a boss or a man - but they fell 'obliged' to pursue careers because of all the feminist BS that is drummed into them when young and that says they are equal to men - they are not and never will be. Take away immature voters and you will remove the feminist political policies that cause all the problems you mentioned. Women are not the problem - it is the feminists and immature girls who believe their BS. 

3 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You are equating volume with quality. You are wrong. The reason there are more females in some Degree courses is because they get DEI preferential selection and advantage - and they want to be lawyers (money and prestige).  They dont want to be (and know they cannot be) Engineers, Scientists, Mechanics, Mathematicians, IT Technology, etc etc etc.  I bet you that in 10 years a lot of them will have left the legal profession and males will still be the majority. Women always do that and in vastly higher numbers than males. I recall a study in Australia in early 2000s that found 74% of males who had a degree were working in that industry (it did not publish the level they were at) - but it was less than 40% of females who were working in the industry they had a degree for (cannot remember the number - but it was almost double).  Of that less than 40%, guess which two were the dominant ones - Nursing and Teaching.  The reason is that women will change careers if they dont like a job, and they start families, and they just dont want to (or cant) work in that industry. Men will suck it up and suffer through - providers and all that.

 

 

The thing is though, times have changed now, a considerable number of single women do not want to marry and do not want a family. In the past this drive to have children has indeed stopped women from attaining the higher echelons like partnership in law firms.

 

However, here too women are slowing increasing every single year. Even if they are now in the 35% range, as far as partnership goes,  this will no doubt go up in the future.

 

5 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The majority of women do not want to be a boss or a man - but they fell 'obliged' to pursue careers because of all the feminist BS that is drummed into them when young and that says they are equal to men - they are not and never will be. Take away immature voters and you will remove the feminist political policies that cause all the problems you mentioned. Women are not the problem - it is the feminists and immature girls who believe their BS. 

 

I don't think that's true. I think women want to be boss as much as men. Some more so. Did Ursula von der Leyen not desperately want to head the EU? She did. Many UK female politicians are desperate to be PM. Kamala Harris wanted to be president.

 

Yes, the feminist ideals have greatly influenced women's desires to shape their lives. However, it's a simple financial matter, isn't it? Women are choosing to invest in careers because they know that's where the money is. Getting a husband, that's a mater of luck, will he have money, wil he stay with me? However, if they become lawyers they control the income stream themselves.

 

As long as women have that option they will choose the career. It's a surer thing.

25 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The thing is though, times have changed now, a considerable number of single women do not want to marry and do not want a family. In the past this drive to have children has indeed stopped women from attaining the higher echelons like partnership in law firms.

 

However, here too women are slowing increasing every single year. Even if they are now in the 35% range, as far as partnership goes,  this will no doubt go up in the future.

 

 

I don't think that's true. I think women want to be boss as much as men. Some more so. Did Ursula von der Leyen not desperately want to head the EU? She did. Many UK female politicians are desperate to be PM. Kamala Harris wanted to be president.

 

Yes, the feminist ideals have greatly influenced women's desires to shape their lives. However, it's a simple financial matter, isn't it? Women are choosing to invest in careers because they know that's where the money is. Getting a husband, that's a mater of luck, will he have money, wil he stay with me? However, if they become lawyers they control the income stream themselves.

 

As long as women have that option they will choose the career. It's a surer thing.

I dont think you have been around a long time and have been living and working with women for almost 40 years. I do know what I am saying from first hand experience - no rose coloured glasses either.  If you do not know what a woman says and what she truly feels and believes are not the same thing, then you have a lot of learning to do. Women will say to their partner absolute bold face lies (see below) - the better ones dont lie as much. What women say to surveys and other studies are total absolute lies.

 

Take a look at the internet and social media - there is currently a large and growing number of mid30s to 40s year old women who are very sad, lonely and desperate - they believed the feminist BS and are very unhappy.  Younger women are seeing this and although they will never admit it, they are changing and there are now less and less of them that want to be a 'girl boss'. It is not just males that have rebelled against the girl boss feminist BS - it is a lot of the younger women, and the older women are saying 'I tried to tell you darling but you did not listen'. 

 

What you are saying is not want women really want - their own source of financial money - the vast majority of those that had it, have wasted it on themselves - that is what women do.  Women are born liars - and other women know they are lying - but the vast majority of men have no idea when they are lying (for a long time - some never). Women are smarter than men - but unfortunately their inbuilt advantages are often used for themselves.  Good women will not use that ability to lie to get what they want (much) - bad women lie a lot to get want they want all the time. If you are watching por*/OF and think they are actually excited in any way, you are very much mistaken and have a lot to learn about women.  There is a reason that men have mates and women dont. Women have allies and enemies - they do not have mates.  I think you are hearing what is being said, but not observing enough what is actually happening. 

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The OP topic is WOMEN SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.   Just like all woke progressive Karens looking for trouble, you knew what was behind that door and you walked in and started criticising.  Get a life and stop virtue signalling.   

 

You're right about one thing. It was obvious that there would be two basic points of view: 1) The idea held by rational people that there is no valid reason to exclude +/-50% of the population from voting simply by virtue of their gender 2) the irrational remainder.

 

Actually, you are (partially) right about one other thing. It was highly unlikely that I would be able to avoid criticising those who fall into the second camp. Usually, initially at least, I try to give a reasoned counter-argument if I disagree with something. In this case, a sarcastic comment was the most appropriate response to the nonsense being spouted.

 

It's sad to think that sad, old misogynists such as yourself still exist in the 21st century.

8 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I dont think you have been around a long time and have been living and working with women for almost 40 years. I do know what I am saying from first hand experience - no rose coloured glasses either.  If you do not know what a woman says and what she truly feels and believes are not the same thing, then you have a lot of learning to do. Women will say to their partner absolute bold face lies (see below) - the better ones dont lie as much. What women say to surveys and other studies are total absolute lies.

 

Take a look at the internet and social media - there is currently a large and growing number of mid30s to 40s year old women who are very sad, lonely and desperate - they believed the feminist BS and are very unhappy.  Younger women are seeing this and although they will never admit it, they are changing and there are now less and less of them that want to be a 'girl boss'. It is not just males that have rebelled against the girl boss feminist BS - it is a lot of the younger women, and the older women are saying 'I tried to tell you darling but you did not listen'. 

 

What you are saying is not want women really want - their own source of financial money - the vast majority of those that had it, have wasted it on themselves - that is what women do.  Women are born liars - and other women know they are lying - but the vast majority of men have no idea when they are lying (for a long time - some never). Women are smarter than men - but unfortunately their inbuilt advantages are often used for themselves.  Good women will not use that ability to lie to get what they want (much) - bad women lie a lot to get want they want all the time. If you are watching por*/OF and think they are actually excited in any way, you are very much mistaken and have a lot to learn about women.  There is a reason that men have mates and women dont. Women have allies and enemies - they do not have mates.  I think you are hearing what is being said, but not observing enough what is actually happening. 

 

I'm looking at what is actually happening. Single households are increasing, the number of marriages are declining, women living alone is on the increase. Regardless of what women are saying, they are increasinly staying single more often and not having children.

 

The numbers in the professions, both legal and medical, show that women are increasingly taking over those professions. So they are choosing careers over marriage and children.

 

The number of female partners is steadily going up every year.

 

Numbers don't lie.

 

Women are choosing careers over marriage.  And in the law the vast majority of the women who are newly qualified solicitors do want to make partner. 

 

You make some good points about female nature. But we have to look at reality and what is actually happening. Women are on the verge of taking over the professions. If that happens, it's not just the law and medicine that will become even more focused on providing advantages for women than is the case already, politics too will go even more that way.