Was suffrage a mistake?

Maybe we should stop men from voting :^)

We should have a wordfilter in place for 'spook'

Maybe change it to IDEOLOGY or something retarded like that

> Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours.

Not much of a deterrent.

Yes. Global happiness started dropping with women's suffrage, then started dropping faster with the introduction of feminism, and then finally dropped to the rock bottom with the sexual revolution.

If only I had the chance to turn back the clock, maybe I could have had a chance to change the course of history.

>Yes. MY happiness started dropping with women's suffrage, then started dropping faster with the introduction of feminism, and then finally dropped to the rock bottom with the sexual revolution.

>If only I had the chance to turn back the clock, maybe I could have had a chance to have a girlfriend

FTFY, /pol/io

The cause is that in a democrasy people choose who to vote so you can show the turnouts with or without women.

>he somehow managed to miss the entire century of wonderful laissez-faire capitalism we had in this country before it all went to shit in the 20th century

-you- were a mistake

The political franchise should be earned through service to the nation. No one should get it just by chance of birth.

Yes.
But practically difficult.
Police suppression would of worked under some forms of absolute monarchy and constitution monarchy. But keeping votes away from women is hard under liberalism and the parties that espouse it.

Home-front fifth column:
I suppose that how they gained the vote was the power in the work place they gained during WWI and WWII working in the municians factories while the men went to work. The feminist suffragists infiltrated the factories as a fifth column and being the more educated women they gained power as middle managers and foremen/forewomen.

As men died in wars, the women ratio in the population increased allowing suffragists to vote in feminist policies.

Some governments were forced to put women in charge post WWI and WWII. It was part of the cultural Marxist movement and its liberalism supporters.

...

Aren't women who are polled generally found to be incredibly miserable these days?

Fucking absolutely

explain to me how the government gets to tell you what substances you can ingest and which ones you can't

I'd go as far to say the average person in general is rather miserable given the state of the world currently, but that must just be my crippling depression.

I remember one day in class we were studying prohibition. We got to the part with the woman vigilante groups and the teacher asked "What do you think caused this woman to start this group?" I replied "No amount of liquor would make her look attractive." Classmates were silent, while teacher was struggling to continue class due to the fact his sides went into orbit.

>It was part of the cultural Marxist movement
[citation needed]

At least your teacher had a decent sense of humor, God know if anyone in my classes were to say that they would have been kicked out of class

>it's another "Veeky Forums doesn't realise these are men dressed as women" episode

Yes.

His prediction was so flawless that is not even funny.

Very true. I think a real liberal republican democracy would only allow land-owners to vote, that it head of households. As long as no laws can be passed to restrict land ownership, this system would probably work much better than our current democratic process. People now can live off the state and vote themselves a bigger paycheck, obviously leading to abuses of power.

>The economy has also grown
Oh shit,is not like economies grow through time
>And technology has developed further
Nothing to do with voting rights
>and there is generally less war and famine.
After WW2 Europe became puppets of the US and the USSR,so war was out of the equation. Nothing to do with voting rights again

>Just look at your country's economic policies compared with the rest of the world's and you'll understand it's not at all "left-wing"
Look at Europe's average growth. Like it or not social democracies aren't working,and they are slowly being force to transition into a more market based economy. Just compare the UK and France and you will see which economic policy is superior

That won't work in todays society where most people live in cities and don't own land, we don't live in a world where 90% of people are involved in agriculture anymore

Daily reminder fundie Ameritard Christians had more to do with prohibition than Suffragettes.

I mean, you retards still have places where they don't sell alcohol on a fucking sunday.

Big cities are leftist subhuman trash heaps anyway so no biggie.

No it was the women who voted it in a landslide while all the men were booted to Europe

So most of the subhuman trash in NYC and LA can't vote? That seems like a solution, not a problem. People who can be considered people will always want to own a piece of land so that they can live and feel free, not living under another man's roof. If you don't care to be free from a landlord, you obviously don't care to be free to vote.

In general, but no more for women than for men.

Generally, yes.

It's your depression. Women are less happy than ever before.
Men are pretty stable,but down a bit.

Oh that's not true and you know hun. Your gender is showing

I really hate having to say this, but at the end of the day one of the first things that happened as a result of suffrage movement was prohibition and all the infringements upon our rights that followed from that.

So yeah, women being allowed the vote was a serious fucking mistake.

No, Queen Elizabeth was a fairly competent monarch.

The problem isn't women,it's democracy.

>give women rights
>they try to take yours

the eternal female strikes again

The parliament rules. Besides naming ONE woman says nothing about the masses.

HEINLEIN SPACE FASCISM FUCKING WHEN

GODDAMNIT

Why didn't the all-male Senate and House of Reps vote against presenting the 18th amendment to the states in the first place?

Why would it have been a mistake exactly?

You're not giving any examples as to what constitutes mistaken about it, so I'm guessing you're just making bait threads.

Deny harder, Protestcuck.

Nah, we do pretty good as long as we're also the right color.

>The parliament rules.
then what was the English Civil War about?

>Besides naming ONE woman says nothing about the masses.
True, but the masses are unfit to rule in both genders

Look at the sorts of policies that women tend to support. Look at prohibition and all the infringements upon our rights that followed from that.

Do you like the security state user? I don't and though it bothers me to say it, women are a pretty large part of the reason why the security state exists now.

The whole world is built by men and sustained by men.

If you think the "security state" as you call it, would exist without men as a group wanting it to be there, you're delusional.

About how much the parliament rules. They did kinda execute the king.

You say this but as women have gotten more and more voice the west has degenerated into identify politics bullshit and at the head of that is feminism.

That and men tend to be taken to task for poor decisions based on emotional bullshit, not so much with women

You mean like prohibition on illegal drugs, which was supported in the late 19th century/early 20th century because shitloads of westerners were being slain by quacks?

Or how about alcohol prohibition? Done by Protestant Spastics America has hitloads of?

>>Men as a group want the security state to be there.
False.

>The whole world is built by men and sustained by men.
Somewhat true, but with the help and support of women, and much of what men do in support of civilization is for the sake of having a woman and a family. This is where the trouble lay, and why the suffragettes did so much damage.

>False.

No, it's not. Millions of men depending on what country you're talking about are also socialists and centre-leftists that support a welfare state.

If you think it's *only* because of women that society is how it is, you are horribly mistaken.

Parliament couldn't even get together unless the king convened it.

Parliament had power, but don't make the mistake of thinking pre-Civil War England monarchs are like English monarchs today. Monarchs held considerable power, much more than the Prime Minister holds today.
>You say this but as women have gotten more and more voice the west has degenerated into identify politics bullshit and at the head of that is feminism.
Yep, well women didn't invent leftism, the Enlightenment did. Women didn't flock to leftism either without male intellectuals trying to sell them on it. Feminism was not invented by women, it was invented by men.

>>You mean like prohibition on illegal drugs, which was supported in the late 19th century/early 20th century because shitloads of westerners were being slain by quacks?
The drug war has been an abject failure and we would be better off not fighting it. At the very least, we would be better off not fighting it as we do now.

>>Or how about alcohol prohibition? Done by Protestant Spastics America has hitloads of?
Yeah dude? It would have gone absolutely nowhere without women voting for it in droves.

Nice try, but I don't give two shits about people being given welfare. That's not my problem.

>>If you think it's *only* because of women that society is how it is, you are horribly mistaken.
Not only, no. But women do share a large portion of the blame.

>That's not my problem.

Then what is?

Cut the bullshit it is a balance but parliament wilds operational power the monarchs tend to stay out of it.

Leftism is fine, I am on the left. But women have made it toxic. Feminism was absolutely invented by women Mary wolenscroft was one of the first.
Just so you know you are doing a very female thing but shirking responsibility for feminism. Even if it had been invented by men the modern toxicity is solely women's doing.
You and this is what toxic femininity looks like.

It all boils down to an ever increasing amount of government interference in our lives. 120 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that alcohol would have been banned, that prostitution would be illegal today, that the drug war would exist at all, that gun control would be a thing other then shooting straight, that the state would have anything like the ability it has now to crackdown as hard as it does on the individual.

The last century has been very bad for individual rights and I would say that most of the problem started with the women's suffrage movement.

You can't equate "feminism" with an organization such as the Catholic Church as "feminism" can mean very different things depending on that particular person, while there have been women rights activists, no one can claim to be the sole leader of the feminist movement

>Cut the bullshit it is a balance but parliament wilds operational power the monarchs tend to stay out of it.
Not before the English Civil War they sure didn't. The monarchs wielded enormous power and were considered God's appointed representative. Parliament's power increase was gradual and took a long, long, long time, and didn't eclipse the king's until after the Civil War

> Feminism was absolutely invented by women
Term was literally coined by a man for an ideology he pushed.

>It would have gone absolutely nowhere without women voting for it in droves.
Or Congress could have shut it down before ratification. It shouldn't have been hard considering it was a complete sausage fest in 1920

Prohibition was more of an anti-immigrant movement than it was a woman's suffrage issue. Most people who supported prohibition thought that the language of the law would ban only hard spirits which were associated with the new wave of impoverished inner city migrants, they didn't think drinks such as beer, hard cider and wine would have been included in the language of the law

I can and will. It's what they do.
Until there is a schism they are borg.

>120 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that alcohol would have been banned, that prostitution would be illegal today, that the drug war would exist at all, that gun control would be a thing other then shooting straight, that the state would have anything like the ability it has now to crackdown as hard as it does on the individual.

Alcohol isn't banned, prostitution is legal in many states, drugs are even decriminalized in some(Portugal), gun control is practically non-existent in America.

While I agree with you that individual rights are pretty bad, your examples are bullshit and have nothing to do with women.

Who is they? Some person you never met of no importance who made a tumblr post you don't agree with? A girl who doesn't feel obliged to wait around for you even though you feel entitled to her affection?

I'm sure you are just perfect and its always "someone else" who is wrong

Did queen Victoria rule after the civil war or before? If the monarch really rules then she would have married prince Albert before she ascended and he would have been king he would have had more power in government. None of that happened because of parliament. It's really irrelevant anyway.

Like I said even if that is true it does nothing to absolve women of their behavior today. You are showing me that you deserve no right to vote by refusing to accept the culpability of women in the toxicity of feminism . Is shirking responsibility another female trait?

>Did queen Victoria rule after the civil war or before?
Long after.

I'm mostly referring to the the US here.

>>Alcohol isn't banned
Not nationally anymore no, but it should never have been banned in the first place and there are still dry counties where you can't buy booze at all.

>>prostitution is legal in many states
In the US? No. Besides, the feminist anti-prostitution activists have been doing their damndest to get it outlawed elsewhere.

>>drugs are even decriminalized in some(Portugal),
I'm talking about the US here, not Portugal.

>>gun control is practically non-existent in America.
That is a misconception, different states have different laws. Try buying a pistol in the city of chicago and see how much of a pain in the ass it is to acquire a permit and all the necessary paperwork.

>You are showing me that you deserve no right to vote
No, I don't deserve the right (but rights are not about being "deserved" anyway), and neither do you. Popular art is awful, popular music is, popular entertainment is, why would popular politics be any better?

>entitled
Take your stupid tumblr buzzwords elsewhere faggot.

>I'm mostly referring to the the US here.

Regardless, you haven't shown how this is connected to women in any way. You've just said individual rights are bad = Suffragette movement was a mistake.

Either you're a baitlord, /r9k/fag, or /pol/tard, or all of the above.

>Prohibition
>18th amendment
>Women's suffrage
>19th amendment

>Women voted in Prohibition

And what absolves men of toxic machismo culture? You can use the same argument as men.

The goal of equality was never the right to succeed, it is the right to try and potential fail. Many women have used their rights to succeed and many have wasted it sucking off drunk guys behind a nightclub dumpster. Just because YOU don't control the outcome that YOU don't agree with doesn't take away someones right to make their own choices, form their own opinions and live with the consequences of their own actions be it good or bad.

>>You've just said individual rights are bad = Suffragette movement was a mistake.

In the US, prohibition is where the government intrusion into people's lives really began. The consequences of prohibition include things like gun control, the war on drugs, illegal prostitution in most of the country, and guess what? Prohibition would have gone nowhere without the support of women.

I don't know why everyone treats prohibition as some kind of giant evil legislation. So much liquor was consumed per capita in the United States before prohibition that levels still haven't recovered.

Unless suddenly the "muh women voting ruining everything :((" people are okay with American households being afflicted with large amounts of paternal alcoholism that made it impossible for families to provide for themselves.

If something is popular then there are a good number of people who enjoy those things, being a contrarian doesn't make you unique or more intelligent, it just makes you a pretentious asshole

I know that you're Constantine, and everything you post is at least tangentially bait, but posts like this are lazy, even for you.

Because the cure was worse then the disease.

>>In the US, prohibition is where the government intrusion into people's lives really began.
I would much rather have higher rates of alcoholism then the overreaching security state we have now.

So what if a good number of people enjoy something? That doesn't make it of high quality. And running the country is a lot more critical than all this.

They as in those who are adherents to the religion of feminism it's not hard

You last lines make no sense. You are just trying to slander me.

> prohibition is where the government intrusion into people's lives really began

>not the Civil War era which saw a huge increase in federal oversight and powers, saw the press censored by the president, and the creation of a permanent national army manned by a conscripted force

The question was rhetorical you fool.

The Civil War is what made parliament eclipse the monarch in power. Queen Elizabeth ruled before the Civil War.

>feminism is a religion

Well it was fun while it lasted, Veeky Forums is just /pol/ with dates

Women could vote as early as the 1840s 19th just put it on the federal books.

I don't think prohibition was great, but that's moreso on the fact that the legal writing was really vague, and the enforcement of the law was spotty to begin with. (As a Canadian, I'd be remiss to not note that Prohibition really helped the Canadian brewery industry)

Prohibition was repealed, amid popular outcry too. I find it ridiculous to think it emblematic of any sort of government control.

I judge what they have chosen as poor.
That's all their is to this

Are you parodying the poster you're responding to or are you this stupid?

The USA has been the worlds most protectionist state of almost all time.

None of those things are anywhere near as intrusive as prohibition was. I guess I should have qualified like this:

>prohibition is where the government intrusion into people's private lives really began

>>I find it ridiculous to think it emblematic of any sort of government control.

I disagree and I don't really think we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue.

See there you go again trying to find some personal thing to discount to my opinion. I am an athiest minority pol would never be my home.

It's as an athiest that I can see the strong strains of religiosity.

You talked Victoria you dishonest twat.

>okay with the president imprisoning journalists who disagree with him

>okay with being forced into a war against your own countrymen

>being told that you can't drink is too far

I'm not okay with any of those things.