How did women justify their demands for voting rights...

>because i said its wrong and besides its current year

>Why not isn't really an answer though

It is in this case, because you were suggesting the right to vote is contingent on fighting in a war. Since that clearly isn't the case, "they didn't fight in a war, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to vote" is no longer an argument.

The fact that men who don't fight are allowed to vote is a legitimate rebuttal, unlike your rebuttal which is just memes. If you don't know how to argue like an adult go to rebbit or something.

>How did women justify their demands for voting rights?

Are you asking for a justification for democracy? If so, why just the focus on women? If not, the answer is because we believe in democracy.

Men as a gender fight, women don't.

>because we believe in democracy

Upboated

>Men as a gender fight, women don't.

If we're just going to make generalizations so we can treat people as an aggregate then why can't we say that 'humans as a race fight'?

>Housework is a legitimate part of the economy

>They didn't even fight in a war like European lower classes or American blacks did.
Because they weren't allowed too, yeah.

Because half of humanity generally doesn't fight

Because none of them volunteered en masse

Fucking hell, not even people who opposed women's suffrage were this dismissive about their traditional role as a homemaker.

There should only be one vote cast per household, whoever is the leader of the house should be the one to cast it

Well if contributing to rearing children and maintaining a household is not a legitimate contribution to society then I guess it shouldn't matter to you if women decide to spend all their time partying, slutting it up, and refusing to settle down and start a traditional family. I mean, it's not like traditional gender roles matter to maintaining a cohesive civilization, right?

:^)

That's not the reason men had the right to vote anyway.

Congratulations, you have just further incentivized the atomization of society and the deterioration of the traditional family.

It's a big part, the founders took the citizen soldier idea seriously

>it's not like traditional gender roles matter to maintaining a cohesive civilization

>implying they do

Seriously?

> I guess it shouldn't matter to you if women decide to spend all their time partying, slutting it up, and refusing to settle down and start a traditional family

It really doesn't, look around you

>a return to the traditional voting structure will destroy the traditional family

Yeah, it will, because social norms don't exist in a vacuum and a rule that worked in the past will not work if we reinstate it since women have different expectations now.

I mean, let's say you want to vote for trump but your wife doesn't, now she's going to nag you and threaten to break up with you for not voting for Shillary.

They did, but at the core that's not the reason men demanded the right to vote. The constitution does not grant us that right as compensation for fighting. We wanted representation, women wanted the exact same thing.

In any case in Current Year women can serve in the military anyway.

>It really doesn't, look around you

OK, I'm looking around and I'm seeing 12 million single-parent households in the US and a 40-50 percent divorce rate.

Alright friend, try instituting equal gender polygamy and see how long society lasts without blood in the streets

>Upboated

So still just memeing. Nice shit thread, OP. Maybe you'd like to actually answer a question one day.

But using that logic, wouln't people with more politically/socially similar views have relationships together, rather than with people having opposing views?
Wouldn't that also lead to less domestic violence after a settling period?

>Because half of humanity generally doesn't fight

Far less than half fights, senpai. (And again, why does this matter?)

Women were represented by men as men represented the household. Anti suffragists were right when they said women's suffrage was a tool to fracture the family. Men and women had separate but complimentary spheres and women destroyed that. Men as the head of the family and women's submission as his helper was unironically believed in until about the 1960s.

Modern society sucks.

And the most prosperous, peaceful and socially equal times history

Less than half of men fight. God damn /pol/ really does have subhuman iq it's not just memes.

Of the two genders, men are the ones who fight

>But using that logic, wouln't people with more politically/socially similar views have relationships together, rather than with people having opposing views?

Is that necessarily a good thing? I mean, part of the reason the US is so polarized is that people would rather believe memes about the other side than actually try to understand each other and cooperate. It's the same reason people like 'le current year man' and Colbert are so popular.

How long? Single-parent households are a breeding ground for fuck ups, especially single mother ones, and divorces damage a growing child's psyche and breed distrust in his heart

>he fell for the equality meme

Well they weren't entirely represented that's ridiculous. If they had a differing opinion to their husband it was dismissed because again, the role of women was supporter and helper. I can't blame anyone for wanting to throw away a dynamic in which they are to be subservient through circumstance of birth.

But clearly your issue here is broader than voting rights.

And far less than a quarter of the people who fight are women, I'm just saying if you are generalizing, the generalization is that women don't fight

Fair point, there would be less overall political discussion of opposing views.

For like 5 more years, then the US and Europe is fucked. Also coincidentally we abandoned traditional values about 50 years ago

They could always just become the head of a household

And yet basically all cultures functioned this way across human history

Well, no they couldn't. Such an idea would be absolutely ridiculous during the time women's suffrage was fought for.

And now we get this weird androgynous society instead because women rejected their natural roles. Go outside the western world, like actually travel, and see how weird western society is.

Let's get real here, the reason we let women vote is because if we didn't then they would keep nagging us until they eventually get hit because they won't shut up. And if that happens they will resort to dirty tricks like calling the police or divorcing, so really giving them the vote is the logical way to make life easier for men.

What, never heard of a bit of arsenic in the morning coffee?

The reason this wasn't as widespread is that most women were content with their way of life, because they trusted in their husbands to make the right decisions as regarding themselves and the household

>muh chattel household

Daily reminder that a large part of the Prohibition of alcohol in America was because of the Women's Temperance Movement, and there's no way anyone can get the constitution amended if they are literally slaves to their husbands.

Yep, until ideas like rights and individual liberty were conceived. If you want to argue that we've made a mistake you'll have to elaborate beyond some appeal to tradition.

feminism gives free contraceptives to women, while they do nothing for those for men, especially they never fought for them to be free of charge
and they never encouraged free drugs to fight against the erectile dysfucntion, as you must have a boner before even putting a condom, while they advocate sexual jouissance for every woman on earth

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk about psychological violence on men from women

feminism does nothing to liberate the talk of raped men inside a household

feminism favorizes the abortion whithout even the requirement to inform the father

feminism does nothing against coerced paternity

feminism does nothing about the inequality favouring women on the dating game

feminists actually do not promote intellectual independance as a men is considered a sexist scumbag as soon as he disagrees with them or even try to nuance their positions

do you still believe that the feminists fight for equality ?

>tfw no qt submissive housewife who looks up to you

Truly born too late

Probably the best argument I've seen for it, and I'm not entirely happy with women having voting rights.

Good job, user. May be the first time someone's opinion changed due to a post on Veeky Forums.

We also have the most prosperous societies in the world with the greatest amount of individual rights. Hmmm...

Reminder that suffrage is literally the biggest meme of all, and along with pederasty in ancient greece will be gone in 2 centuries or so

Now though, it would work

Birth rates and immigration will fix that pretty soon

Unless of course you start doubting the Holocaust openly in France or Germany, then you don't have any individual rights anymore, and will probably be in prison for 10 years.

Criticizing Islam isn't a good idea either. Neither is criticizing feminism.

You can't make up your mind as to what your argument is, can you?

Start here: what is the qualification(s) any given individual needs to have in order to be allowed to vote?

There's no question quite a few women were happy without suffrage. But the basic reason they couldn't vote was because they were not being granted the same rights as men. Women who didn't care to vote could continue on not voting.

Owning land and contributing to the economy

And yet a few appreciate it.

Mongolians may sleep in a yurt and drink nothing but mare's milk, but they're probably happier than your average western man or woman

Women's suffrage along with decolonisation are the biggest mistakes of the 20th century.

Yes, we do have some cultural issues and stupid laws, like everywhere else in the world.

>one vote per household
>childless bachelors and cat ladies now have twice the voting power of the average married person
>funding for schools and things that actually help society plummets as selfish non-traditional fedora-tippers are given disproportionate representation

In the US atleast. In Australia there were so many different groups (such as feminist groups as well as aboriginal groups) protesting for voting rights it became mandatory for every adult to vote.

And why is this an improvement over individual voting rights?

There's been a lot of doomsaying over the years. We'll see if you're right I guess.

>joe farmer and joe suburban office drone now arbitrarily has more power to determine the fate of the country than joe factory worker or joe coder who live in the city

If happiness comes at the expense of liberty then happiness can go to hell.

I did not say that, I said they were expected to be subservient.

Because women usually vote for big government and social programs

Not a lot of doomsayers have faced as straits as dire as ours. We are talking of a culture war the likes of which have never been seen

Oh, so they vote for things you don't like.

In the grand scheme of things all this does is make the vote of single people more powerful.

>factory work and coding doesn't contribute to the economy

Yeah I think that's dense but that's up to the austrailians to protest. At least you don't have first past the post.

Yeah man I mean the American Civil war or the 30 year's war are one thing but these days people are getting into shitposting wars over the internet and occasionally rioting! It's like the fall of Rome all over again!

The culture war people in this thread are talking about was fought some 90 years ago.

They vote to make the state their husband

Lern2read. I was replying to someone who said that to vote you need to contribute to the economy AND own land.

>25% of French youth is muslim, with a penchant for radicalism
>the other 75% is leaning more towards the right wing than previous generations
>BRUH EVERYTHING IS OK

>I said they were expected to be subservient.

And men are expected to be subservient to their boss.

I mean, I get that you're against hierarchy, but lets not pretend that women are such a special case of being aggrieved by it.

You have very poor reading comprehension. They're saying that rural/suburban areas are given more weighted representation than urban areas, not that urban workers are worthless.

Oh sorry I was talking about the US not irrelevant countries.

Yeah again I don't see how this trumps individual voting rights to enact a solution that wouldn't even work. This means liberal and conservative families alike lose half their voting power. In fact it would probably mean that a lot of young women would be resistant to getting married.

It's worth pointing out however that this isn't an objective problem, you're just a conservative and don't like that women lean left.

Enjoy your Mexicans and haughty niggers then

Lol who cares? Nig birth rates are almost as low as White birth rates and all they do is shoot each other.

Mexicans don't even really do anything.

Like I said, it doesn't even come close to actual cultural crises.

Sucks about Europe though. Too bad they can't deal with change.

It would mean left leaning women would be more influenced by their more likely right leaning husbands though, its a net loss for those that think of the government as their provider

I don't think it was ever expected that a man's boss vote for him. Putting words in my mouth with that hierarchy shit.

Yeah his kind of thinking disgusts me, and I'm generally conservative. Fucking around with laws and peoples' ability to vote just because they disagree with you is the kind of scummy shit I'd expect from politicans, not normal decent people.

Careful with that edge

Don't call Dostoyevsky edgy

>too bad they can't deal with change

Like ikr? We need to be more welcoming to refugees

Yeah I get it man. You want to disempower people who vote differently.

I wouldn't really have a problem with women being able to vote, if they stopped voting parties that increase my taxes to fund their abortions, birth control and single motherhood.

Reminder to stay in your containment board

Desu if they all vote right wing and were still submissive housewives I'd be ok with it