Do women deserve to vote?

Do women deserve to vote?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Boyd_Granville
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Alexander
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Mani
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Kwolek
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dian_Fossey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Blackburn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Jemison
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Do most men?

>sweden

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
no

No.

>sweden
>men

W
O
M
E
N

A
R
E

C
U
N
T
S

Of course.

Yes

No and neither do most men

why?

why?

i'm going with Ahmed on this one

their brains aren't wired to think rationally. no

only the top 5% of people as determined by an IQ test should be allowed to vote.

>slavs
>human

>democracy
Autocracy is the way to go

look around you

I linked the reason you daft turk rape baby

Any person over the age of 18 deserves the vote. Despite the general opinion on Sup Forums, women are human beings just like men and have the same God-given rights as them.
Denying somebody the ballot on the basis of their reproductive biology deprives a country of the contributions of half of its population to the process of governance. In addition, human beings in a democracy must have representation and if women do not have the vote, they are being ruled and taxed without representation; it is antithetical to democracy as a definition.

>Russia
>Voting

>Denying somebody the ballot on the basis of their reproductive biology deprives a country of the contributions of half of its population to the process of governance.
Men contribute more.

Fuck democracy dude

It's ruining the West

No.

Here's what I did to stop my kids from fighting over who got a bigger slice of cake: I got one to cut the slices, and the second one to choose their slice first. Let's just say that if we could scrap self-interested voting and replace it with a system like my kids' cake-cutting, then I think that women would be able to take part.

>why?

Look at the world today. Every single country in the West that's currently going to shit is a democracy.
It's going to shit because democracy is a mob rule, and people generally speaking are just too stupid to decide the fate of their nation. Just think about leftists who all vote for muslim immigration, even though it's known that the more muslim your country becomes, the more oppressed the people the left cares about will become.

When you have gullible dipshits like that in a majority then you're fucked.

Democracy is a meme God. Stop worshipping it.

>mongols
>human

I think only men above 28 years should be allowed to vote.

Fucking manchildren.

...

Average person doesn't deserve to vote, democracy is a joke.
Women doubly so, overwhelming majority will just go with MSM because they are incapable of going against the grain

RARE
A
R
E

Mexico is statistically more obese than Burgerland

its the nigresses that are the fattest

why are you discriminating against 17 year olds? are you a bigot?

It's certainly easier to look at the political precedent of men historically when women were frequently barred from office or from voting. But that's not really fair, is it? The question is whether or not both sexes have the same capacity for innovation, mangement, and productivity, which they undeniably do.

I understand that coming from the shitholes you both live in that you can't understand democracy, but the point isn't about whether or not democracy is good - you just want to fling shit about your opinions without addressing the topic of conversation.
The question is whether or not democracy necessarily gives women the vote in order to be truly democratic and representative. There is little argument that a democracy which can claim to represent all of its citizens must give as close to 100% of the adult population as is reasonable. There is no argument that stands against womens' sufrage in democractic societies, and those countries which have extended the vote have not had any problems as a result.

Democracy is a flawed system. The masses are ignorant about almost everything that matters in regards to running a government, defending a nation, managing foreign affairs, handing economic issues, and improving the state of a country.
This is before factoring in how incredibly easy it is mislead, misinforming and distract them.
Democracy gives power to the least qualified people. The best form of government is a meritocratic, autocratic buerocracy. Unfortunately every flavor of that system tends to have some sort of drawback, and none of them can prevent corruption, although that's obviously a major problem with democracy as well.
Democracy is a tyranny of the (stupid and gullible) masses. People should not be forced to suffer the consequences that letting the ignorant vote causes.

>The question is whether or not both sexes have the same capacity for innovation, mangement, and productivity, which they undeniably do.

[citation needed]

This.
Voting should be a privilege.

>The question is whether or not both sexes have the same capacity for innovation, mangement, and productivity, which they undeniably do.

IM FROM BUENOS AIRES
AND I SAY KILL THEM ALL

>Do most men?
Odd of you to ask this question since, as a Swede, you've never encountered a real man in your life.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
>no

You know the definition of a true man isn't a school shooter?

I cite history as a whole. One needs look no further than the work of Marie Curie, the rule of Elizabeth I, the military leadership of the Truong Sisters, or any other achievements in the history of women that prove women are capable of performing the extraordinary feats of humankind when given the opportunity to do so and are not restricted from carrying them out.

no

>women were frequently barred from office or from voting. But that's not really fair, is it?

Of course, it's fair. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote for the same reasons children shouldn't.

>those countries which have extended the vote have not had any problems as a result.

Shitposting is forbidden at Sup Forums

>Marie Curie

Well congratulations, your citation has proved that only an extremely small, basically statistically nonexistent percentage of woman have done anything worthwhile in regards to what you deem proof of capability.

>The question is whether or not democracy necessarily gives women the vote in order to be truly democratic and representative
You are presuming that being democratic and representative is a good in itself.

Based on their track record so far, no

>"One of our joys was to go into our workroom at night... The glowing tubes looked like faint, fairy lights."

In order to vote you should follow all of the following criteria.

>be male
>be over the age of 35
>be married
>have kids
>pay taxes

Any country would benefit greatly from this.

Its not a buck nigger either, Sven.

Are you this fucking retarded?

I think women voting with their pocket books and cunts is awful...

but not nearly as awful as this comic. Shit tier arguments Ivan. Post a better image macro with that shit.

You can be the drunken git that we all believe you can be.

>Of course, it's fair. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote for the same reasons children shouldn't.
Are you trying to say that women have intellectual capacity deficiencies? Because in the west, women are, on average, more educated than their male counterparts.
No scientific research exists which even remotely suggests that one sex is more intellectually capable than the other. In addition, if women are not given the vote, they are not being democratically represented.

>Shitposting is forbidden at Sup Forums
So is "not an argument"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Boyd_Granville

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Alexander

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Mani

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Kwolek

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dian_Fossey

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Blackburn

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Jemison

Need me to keep going?

I never once said or implied that. What I said was that if a democratic system is to truly portray itself as representing everyone in it, then it must extend the vote to women or be totally hypocritical.

My thoughts exactly citizen.

>What I said was that if a democratic system is to truly portray itself as representing everyone in it
Which is why it is a terrible system.

>intellectual capacity
>educated

one of these things is not like the other

No, women aren't suited for politics like men and they shouldn't have the right to lead in theory.

Except my point is that women who are not socially, economically, or politically restricted are able to do things the equal or greater than men.
Men also have this caveat - they cannot succeed and help the human race if they are held back or kept in the home. However, this is much less of a problem for men, who historically and across cultures have not had the restrictions placed upon them that women have.
If your argument is that women are inferior, then there is no way to explain the rising tide of successful and amazing women who have contributed to our society as they have become less oppressed.

No, the definition of a true man is someone who isn't a cuck, utterly ruled by women. You are living in a literal matriarchy.

How did this happen? You wuz Vikings and shit.

60% of men voted for Austria's FPO right wing party.

60%+ of women voted for far left commie open borders rapefugees.

Who stands at the train stations welcoming invaders?

You can post every woman who has ever contributed to science in human history and their will still be AT LEAST 250 men for every single one.

>Are you trying to say that women have intellectual capacity deficiencies?

Yup.

>more educated than their male counterparts.

Nope, they just get better grades and more """degrees""". I wonder why this might be the case.

>Need me to keep going?

With what? Posting useless lists? Just because there are 0.1% of women who manage to achieve something with the help of men doesn't mean that they should have the vote. Children can achieve many things with the help of men, too.

...

...

And I've made the point already that women have not been scientists for nearly as long because society has restricted them from doing so.
There's really no way for you to deny this and keep your argument internally logically sound. Women have only in the past hundred years even been given the same access to education as men, and even that progress has been slower since education dripped down to the public first, and even then only men.
Also, if we're talking about the capacity for great things, then numbers don't really matter, do they? I know you're kiting this discussion away from voting because you have no counter-points, but if women, as they obviously do, have the same capacity for intellect and innovation as men, why do you deny that?

Democracy is theft. Especially if the lower classes and women vote. It is the immoral transfer of power from those naturally gifted and advantaged to the cripple and unintelligent.

The bad thing is that we will NEVER go back to vote based on property. It would be seen by the majority of people as regression. The only solutions to maintain property rights would be 1. To have a very strict constitution limiting the power of the state, 2. To abolish the state altogether.

>Nope, they just get better grades and more """degrees""". I wonder why this might be the case.

2/2

Pro-tip: see pic.

>Because in the west, women are, on average, more educated than their male counterparts.

Education =/= intellect. For the past 3 decades academic life has been becoming much more gynocentric and there are affirmative action policies and quotas that institutions are constantly promoting to put women ahead of men. These "educated women" you're referring to all get scholarships on the state's dime and then pursue bullshit degrees in humanities and social sciences, meanwhile the few remaining men (who have been dropping out of academic pursuits in droves because they've caught on to how rigged the game is) are pursuing productive careers in things that are actually applicable to real life employment and the betterment of society, like engineering and science. Those that don't, get trades or some other form of employment.

As a Brazilian in shape with American girlfriends, that's hilariously accurate.

>With what? Posting useless lists?
That is essentially what you are doing, so I don't know why it's not a fair way for me to debate as well.

>Just because there are 0.1% of women who manage to achieve something with the help of men doesn't mean that they should have the vote. Children can achieve many things with the help of men, too.
Guess what? For every scientific project a woman completes with other men on the team, all of those men owe their success to the women on the team as well. Dumbass.

Women are biologically authoritarian lefties, usually maniacal bureaucrats who like bend-over politics

Disagreeing with somebody's political views is not an excuse to deny them the ballot in a democracy.

Except that the woman who achieve such things are a way smaller minority in regards to the total female population than the percentage of men who do those things.
You should look up sexual dimorphism. It's a very basic biological concept that is present in human beings. Once you understand that there are differences in the sexes, including their brains, you'll understand the argument.
You should really try to incorporate actual science into your belief system, especially since your so fond of citing scientists as proof of female ability to perform the functions of government, even though that's two totally different things.

That's not even the main problem. When you have everybody voting, the majority votes to steal from the minority through taxation and welfare. Stealing is immoral.

indeed. if the men had to get their own coffee it would have wasted hours over the life of the project

>all of those men owe their success to the women on the team as well. Dumbass.

No, they don't. Because men can achieve (and do achieve and have always achieved throughout history) great things without women.

That women can achieve great things without men has yet to be proven.

By the way, women are inferior even if they had the same mental capacity, which they don't have anyway.

Women only get so many degrees because the standards have been lowered and men are actively being oppressed in the scientific community.

Only property owning white men over the age of 18 deserve to vote.

>hello I don't understand outliers
Your smug condescending tone doesn't disguise the fact that your only argument is "muh oppressment."

Jacksonian democracy is a joke.

Our founding fathers were geniuses. We should have listened to them.

>white
>land owning
>males

Nobody else should have any say. If they do, you get tyrrany of the useless majority.

>Disagreeing with somebody's political views is not an excuse to deny them the ballot in a democracy.

Yeah, heard that before, Derpina. See argument #5

what if those people will take away your political system when given the opportunity?

Sure. If they own assets and pay taxes. Same as anyone.

But we're a constitutional republic, our system isn't democratic

And obviously the numbers matter in a democracy.

>Except that the woman who achieve such things are a way smaller minority in regards to the total female population than the percentage of men who do those things.
I'll only say this one more time because you seem too thick to understand. The reason less women are in the sciences today and historically is due to social and political barriers that disenfranchised them and kept them out of realms considered "men-only." Universities used to be men only too and now women outnumber their male counterparts there.

>You should really try to incorporate actual science into your belief system, especially since your so fond of citing scientists as proof of female ability to perform the functions of government, even though that's two totally different things.
I was challenged on that point because others who argued with me claimed that there was some sort of intellectual deficiency holding women back from holding office. This tactic was used because others here have no legitimate argument against women being able to vote other than their own bigotry.

>a team of men and women complete a project
>only the men deserve credit
What do you want me to say to bull-headed idiocy like that?

They already do. Now in France you can't elect male candidates, you always have to choose a woman if you choose a man.

That's the only way how women can compete, by massive government interference.

>there is no way to explain the rising tide of successful and amazing women who have contributed to our society as they have become less oppressed
Society is getting better, not worse, unless you program decreased wages for all except the ultrawealthy, extermination of white people, and forcing intelligent men out of the workplace to hire significantly cheaper women are good things.

>The reason less women are in the sciences today and historically is due to social and political barriers that disenfranchised them and kept them out of realms considered "men-only."

Of course, Derpina. That's also the reason why children and dogs didn't make scientific breakthroughs: Because they weren't allowed at universities.

people should need to pass a Citizen test before getting the right to vote. They would need to demonstrate that they have broad political knowledge and be aware of current global and national affairs.

The uneducated rabble will ruin our societies.

No they've fucked everything up by creating the welfare state.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
You can't argue against science, friend. There are fundemental differences between the male and female brain.

.... We found a feminazi bois

That is the role of democracy. If a nation votes against democracy, the system should respect that.

Why is that not legitimate. Please, do explain because I don't see one good reason to ban a group from voting because their patterns differ from yours. How about in white-minority areas? Should the white people be banned from voting because the non-white majority dislikes their patterns?

I will only engage good faith arguments, sorry shithead.

The most fundamental principle of democracy is that anyone subject to laws that run contrary to their personal desires are subject to tyranny, and to have a say in your rulership is the antithesis of tyranny. You cannot have a democracy where half the country is by law not allowed to vote: it is by nature contrary to the very idea of democracy. It would be like having a kingdom where the king does not have any power, or a communist state run by private businesses. It by nature makes no sense.

No

Bring me the scalps of 10 negros and you will have your one vote, sir.

>What do you want me to say to bull-headed idiocy like that?

It means that nobody doubts that a mongoloid idiot in a team with non-mongoloid geniuses can be part of a team that accomplishes something.

But if you claim that mongoloid idiots are as capable as non-mongoloid idiots then you need proof. So far you haven't shown a single case where women without the help of men accomplished something in equivalent numbers.

The EU stats for patents speak a clear language: 95% of one-gender-only patents are by male teams.