Post: #1

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Why should we repeal this amendment? The most common argument is that the majority of women tend to vote for leftist candidates and causes. I would add another argument, which is that the state's core functions are those provided by the police, courts, and defense agencies, all of which are male domains. Most policemen, soldiers, judges, and prosecutors are men. The state functions typically carried out by women, such as teaching, are functions that women could better perform in the home. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard writes:

Murray Rothbard Wrote:Perhaps the leading argument for democracy is that it substitutes "ballots for bullets": that it replaces the inconvenient and disruptive processes of violent change by peaceful changes expressing the majority will. . . . . In the first place, physical power is manifestly not equally distributed. In a test of combat, women, old people, and the sick would do very badly. On the peaceful change argument, therefore, there is no justification whatever for giving these physically feeble groups the vote. And not only would they have to be barred from voting, but so also would we have to bar 4-F's [ineligible for the draft because of medical problems] and all citizens who could not pass a test for physical combat fitness. On the other hand, there should obviously be no literacy test, since literacy has no relation to a man’s combat potential. In addition to barring all those not fit for combat from voting, we would clearly have to give plural votes to all who have been militarily trained (such as soldiers and policemen), for it is obvious that a group of highly-trained fighters could easily defeat a far more numerous group of amateurs, even if equally robust.

(Imagine if only physically fit men were allowed to vote. Political parties' "get out the vote" efforts would involve encouraging their supporters to put down the fork and start lifting. The increase in testosterone flowing through the electorate could have an interesting effect on politics.)

Some will argue, "Women are affected by what government policies, and therefore need to have the right to vote." It is still men who bear the brunt of bad policies. Men are more likely to die in wars, to be the victims of violent crimes, and to be sentenced to prison (often for such offenses as selling drugs in order to have money with which to impress women or support their families). Since men own most of the property and earn most of the money in society, and are in the highest tax brackets, they also pay most of the taxes.

Some will ask, Why would women vote to abolish their own suffrage? Let's suppose that 55% of women are leftist, and the other 45% conservative. If conservative women believe that abolishing women's suffrage would help the conservative cause, then that's 45% of the female voters who have a reason to vote to abolish women's suffrage.

At that point, it just becomes necessary to convince slightly more than 55% of men that abolishing suffrage is a good idea. Since men tend to be more conservative than women, that's not necessarily an impossible task.

We might ask ourselves, How were men convinced to enact the 19th Amendment in the first place? Probably progressives thought it would help their agenda, and manginas and white knights supported the idea on principle, or because they thought virtue signalling would get them pussy. So what happens when voters are in a more conservative mood, and when men and women no longer support women's suffrage on principle, and when we have taught the manginas and white knights that they need to learn game rather than try to impress women with virtue signalling?

How strongly do women really feel about women's suffrage? Might not some of them be glad to be relieved of the responsibility of voting? Women often like to tell men, "Honey, there's a spider in the shower" or "The roof needs to be fixed" and use sex roles as a way of avoiding unpleasant or challenging tasks. When I go to the polls, I usually hear women complaining about how long the line is, while the men are more stoical.

Abolishing women's suffrage would give women an opportunity to unload on men the task of staying informed about politics and getting involved. When women are displeased with what a politician is doing, they'll be able to simply tell their husbands, "Honey, please take care of that," rather than actually becoming activists themselves. When elections have bad results, they'll be able to wash their hands of it and say, "Hey, I had nothing to do with that."

In reality, though, as traditional sex roles are restored, women won't be the ones paying taxes, attending universities, holding government jobs, etc., so their tendency and perceived need to concern themselves with politics will be diminished. Abolishing women's suffrage will further reinforce traditional sex roles by serving as a reminder that men and women have different strengths and domains.

The low rates of women running for office are telling. The large number of candidates running unopposed, especially at the state and local levels, shows that women's lack of involvement isn't because men aren't giving them an opportunity to be nominated. Clearly they're not all that engaged in the process, despite how much they repeat what society expects everyone to say, which is that participation in elections is important.

It's also noteworthy that before the 19th Amendment was passed, women already had most of the rights they wanted, such as the right to own property, to manage their own affairs, etc. The historical record shows that when men are in charge, they don't mind giving women whatever freedom they think will be in their best interest. The past century and a half has been characterized by men increasingly bending over backwards to give women whatever they said they wanted, in an effort to please them, and finding that it didn't make them happy. Should it surprise us at all if women say they want suffrage, but actually want something entirely different?

In politics, as in game, what matters are women's actions, not their words. When the time is ripe, let's put the issue of women's suffrage on the ballot, and see what women do in the secrecy of the voting booth. Women are followers by nature, but it is also in their nature to shit test. It is up to us men to provide leadership and stand our ground with integrity and firm belief in the rightness of our cause, despite the cries of "misogynist," in order to earn women's confidence that we are strong enough to take care of them without their needing to hold the reins of power.

Post: #2

I think an additional angle is that when only men vote, men vote for the interest of the entire family. Currently it's generally accepted that wives and husbands will often vote against each other. This has enabled the globalists to use identity politics to manipulate women into offsetting the vote of men, thereby neutralizing a large portion of the electorate and making it easier to manipulate entire elections.

Assuming you even have families ... husbands and wives should not be voting against each other.

It gets murkier when looking at single people. In the olden days you could easily argue that men were doing most of the work and paying most of the taxes and doing all of the fighting if there was a war. Also in the olden days there was an assumption that young unmarried women should be focused on finding a husband, so there wouldn't have been as much concern about disenfranchising single women as there would be now.

Post: #3

So without Adam Carolla evidently Kimmel goes off the lefty deep end, no way he'd do this now.

Post: #4

I'm not sure where the OP was really going with this. It's a big subject. Probably Deep Forum worthy in a way, because it does come down to philosophy, more so than just political philosophy. Female vote is female leadership. A real Christian would not believe in that, the founding fathers did not (race question debate aside), and nor did any serious civilization before the 20th Century. I know liberals like bringing up Native tribes that had female leadership, but that is not a good comparison (social contracts/chiefdoms vs. government systems). I have brought this up in other threads before, but Feminism in the US came from racism and slavery. Had those two things been resolved peacefully and quicker, they would have never gotten that right to vote when they did. Men, not being good Christian men, hating each other is and has always been, enemy no. 1.

I know one thing, if WW3 breaks out (or America collapses) and I survive for a rebuild, and if I have a position of authority, I would strongly advise against it or vote no for it.

It would be repulsively stupid and indignant to make the same mistake twice in one lifetime. That much is certain.

Post: #5

If America enters Civil War or WW3, getting rid of women's vote will be easy. The people will be living in a post-Democratic world, the men would just limit the vote to themselves and the women can suck it up.

The far more pressing issue is removing the women's vote before catastrophe happens. There's a few things to consider:

1. It is immoral to let women vote for a position that controls issues of war. It is men who are registered to draft, and women will never be able to compete on this field. So why should women get to decide on matters of war when they have no skin in the game? No women should be able to vote for Congressional members (who can vote for war) or the President (the CoC).

But for local and state elections, where no matters of war are decided, women can and should be allowed to vote. On matters of schooling and other community projects women will obviously have much to contribute.

2. Since all rights are backed up with violent force, it follows that only men guarantee the right of a woman's vote. Therefore if enough men were persuaded against letting women vote, then women would lose the right to vote automatically.

We do not need to wait for a "collapse" to get rid of the woman's vote, in theory, we just need a supermajority of men (75%+) and it would be impossible to keep a woman's vote. So just focus on convincing men against female suffrage, at least at the federal level. The moral argument provided in point 1 is the best argument.

3. Getting rid of the woman's vote, even just for the federal level, would vastly improve the wealth and efficacy of America. The quality of our politicians would be all business, and we'd have a serious ass-kicking government in power all the time.

If we look at America's history we see that the development of the USA was much faster and vigorous before female suffrage. Although please note that the female vote did not become toxic until the 1960's. The 19th Amendment changed nothing when it was passed, because husbands and wives voted the same 85% of the time anyways back then. So all it did was double the vote but keep the percentages the same.

The people who passed female suffrage could not foresee how women would be turned against men for the gain of the Democrat party. They did not understand how female vanity could be used to threaten the fabric of social life within the Republic. If the men of the 1890's could see what sluts and whores their granddaughters would become as a result of the 19th amendment, they would have never passed it - even at gunpoint.

Post: #6

The new mantra on abortion is "If you don't have a vagina, you can't speak on it", because you don't have much skin in the game.

A similar can be made: "If you don't have a penis, you can't vote on national matters."

Though I suspect that will not fly far. So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Post: #7

(02-16-2017 04:31 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  A similar can be made: "If you don't have a penis, you can't vote on national matters."

This is terrible rhetoric.

How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

Post: #8

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

That would be a stronger argument if American men were all required to serve a couple years in the military, as Israeli men are. (Of course, in Israel, the women are also conscripted, so Israeli women could use that as an argument for why they should have suffrage.)

Post: #9

The problem isn't women voting, the problem is irresponsible people with little loyalty and responsiblity to the nation and the community voting.

Samseau's phrasing is good, tieing the francise to service would work better.

I'm thinking Heinlein's idea of optional 'federal service' has value, people should first sacrifice a few years of their life before voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_Fed...al_Service

Post: #10

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Post: #11

There are 3 countries women can't vote as far as I know, they are Saudi Arabia, UAE, and brunai

Post: #12

And lets be honest here, i don't recall those places being poosy paradises

Point being any women worth banging regardless of their political views is probably going to leave

Post: #13

The Amendments have come in to play with the notion of actually creating a more perfect union. They represent the advancement of thought and of humanity especially when you look at the things they were designed to address.

In my eyes the notion of rolling them back is like buying into the idea that world is flat.

Post: #14

How would you guys feel about going back to only homeowners/property owners voting? There is a zero chance in hell of the 19th getting repealed. It's never going to happen.

I rent and I voted on community referendums I had no stake in. I don't have kids so I didn't want to raise taxes for schools. They could have been great programs, but someone like me shouldn't decide that. I don't plan on settling down in this city, so I couldn't care less about those things.

I think something like one vote per household would make a lot more sense than any idiot college student getting a say. Yeah some cucks would listen to their wives, but it would probably cut down on marriages with opposing political viewpoints.

Post: #15

Outside of some major catastrophe, I don't really see this happening in the next generation, at least. We still live in an age where people can get sued for not baking cakes for gays. It's going to take a gigantic cultural shift before we can even consider the idea of all women not being allowed to vote.

Something more piecemeal might work, though. No voting if you've received any kind of federal welfare in the last 6 months, for example. An easier sell than "women can't vote", and probably targets more liberals as a percentage than just women in general. Although even this idea would probably not fly in the current political climate. The culture is going to have to change before some of the laws do.

Post: #16

Women's suffrage was a huge shit test that our forefathers did not pass.

Post: #17

(02-16-2017 05:00 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  The problem isn't women voting, the problem is irresponsible people with little loyalty and responsiblity to the nation and the community voting.

Samseau's phrasing is good, tieing the francise to service would work better.

I'm thinking Heinlein's idea of optional 'federal service' has value, people should first sacrifice a few years of their life before voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_Fed...al_Service

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #18

(02-16-2017 10:44 PM)BassPlayaYo Wrote:  The Amendments have come in to play with the notion of actually creating a more perfect union. They represent the advancement of thought and of humanity especially when you look at the things they were designed to address.

In my eyes the notion of rolling them back is like buying into the idea that world is flat.

Yep, that 18th Amendment sure made a more perfect union alright. Never should have rolled back that beauty!

Post: #19

(02-16-2017 06:29 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Whether we like it or not, the female suffrage genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that will end this in the eyes of the voting population outside of our fringe groups in the manosphere.

This is fine and there are ways around it. Voting was a right only given to those who served in the military. If you don't have skin in the game, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think a lot of good would come from the following:

Only those who register for selective services get the right to vote. Those that become enlisted or are drafted from SS have a double vote for life. Drafts become a regular thing.

It cuts through the idiots who would never enlist anyway. With the SS being optional, the government should willingly draft people more often.

Deferments and such for the draft should be nonexistent. If you're a woman and get pregnant you will still be going to war and your baby will spend the early months of its life in a military nursery and eventually school while you work. If you're a man at college, tough luck. Your country needs you, though you'll get the GI bill benefits for your time done.

This post was partly inspired by Starship Troopers.

Post: #20

(02-17-2017 03:58 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:29 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Whether we like it or not, the female suffrage genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that will end this in the eyes of the voting population outside of our fringe groups in the manosphere.

This is fine and there are ways around it. Voting was a right only given to those who served in the military. If you don't have skin in the game, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think a lot of good would come from the following:

Only those who register for selective services get the right to vote. Those that become enlisted or are drafted from SS have a double vote for life. Drafts become a regular thing.

It cuts through the idiots who would never enlist anyway. With the SS being optional, the government should willingly draft people more often.

Deferments and such for the draft should be nonexistent. If you're a woman and get pregnant you will still be going to war and your baby will spend the early months of its life in a military nursery and eventually school while you work. If you're a man at college, tough luck. Your country needs you, though you'll get the GI bill benefits for your time done.

This post was partly inspired by Starship Troopers.

Why can't conscription be men only? Since so many women and so many men oppose their daughters going to war as soldiers.

Since conscription is so sexist against women after all if they be included.

If conscription is male only and voting rights involves mandatory conscription. This should keep out about almost all women.

Post: #21

(02-16-2017 10:45 PM)wi30 Wrote:  How would you guys feel about going back to only homeowners/property owners voting? There is a zero chance in hell of the 19th getting repealed. It's never going to happen.

I rent and I voted on community referendums I had no stake in. I don't have kids so I didn't want to raise taxes for schools. They could have been great programs, but someone like me shouldn't decide that. I don't plan on settling down in this city, so I couldn't care less about those things.

I think something like one vote per household would make a lot more sense than any idiot college student getting a say. Yeah some cucks would listen to their wives, but it would probably cut down on marriages with opposing political viewpoints.

Where there is a will there is a way. Cultural shift must come 1st though. Again if I must repeat myself. We are not like the cuckservatives that say "Stop" at this line. No whether 30 years old or older let us roll back all the changes that leftism have wrought in our culture let all of it root and branch be burned into ash.

It took generations for things to go this far then let it be so that down the generations it shall go the other and better way.

We are not stopping until those negatives are utterly destroyed. And a new and much better order replaces that.

Then its on to a better and greater future.

Post: #22

(02-17-2017 06:11 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 03:58 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:29 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Whether we like it or not, the female suffrage genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that will end this in the eyes of the voting population outside of our fringe groups in the manosphere.

This is fine and there are ways around it. Voting was a right only given to those who served in the military. If you don't have skin in the game, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think a lot of good would come from the following:

Only those who register for selective services get the right to vote. Those that become enlisted or are drafted from SS have a double vote for life. Drafts become a regular thing.

It cuts through the idiots who would never enlist anyway. With the SS being optional, the government should willingly draft people more often.

Deferments and such for the draft should be nonexistent. If you're a woman and get pregnant you will still be going to war and your baby will spend the early months of its life in a military nursery and eventually school while you work. If you're a man at college, tough luck. Your country needs you, though you'll get the GI bill benefits for your time done.

This post was partly inspired by Starship Troopers.

Why can't conscription be men only? Since so many women and so many men oppose their daughters going to war as soldiers.

Since conscription is so sexist against women after all if they be included.

If conscription is male only and voting rights involves mandatory conscription. This should keep out about almost all women.

Let the .05% of females with high T serve their country.

What part of the "female suffrage genie" was ambiguous? We can't go that route of ending female suffrage by not allowing them in the military. Male feminists will fight back.

Seriously, the military is easily the antithesis of everything these libtards hold dear. They will avoid it like the plague and is the best way to disenfranchise their voices in voting. This isn't perfect, but if someone is willing to die for his or her country they deserve the right to vote and push their agenda.

Post: #23

(02-16-2017 10:45 PM)wi30 Wrote:  How would you guys feel about going back to only homeowners/property owners voting? There is a zero chance in hell of the 19th getting repealed. It's never going to happen.

I rent and I voted on community referendums I had no stake in. I don't have kids so I didn't want to raise taxes for schools. They could have been great programs, but someone like me shouldn't decide that. I don't plan on settling down in this city, so I couldn't care less about those things.

I think something like one vote per household would make a lot more sense than any idiot college student getting a say. Yeah some cucks would listen to their wives, but it would probably cut down on marriages with opposing political viewpoints.

Just making it one vote per household doesn't work because you are cutting the number of votes from married couples while leaving the unmarried with the same votes they have now. It's another disincentive to marry and reduces the influence of people with families. Unless you define "household" as needing to include a married couple, but then you are excluding single men, including those who pay a lot of taxes and even veterans.

Post: #24

(02-17-2017 08:45 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 06:11 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 03:58 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:29 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  How about, "If you're not on the frontlines, you shouldn't be in the voting line either."

It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Whether we like it or not, the female suffrage genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that will end this in the eyes of the voting population outside of our fringe groups in the manosphere.

This is fine and there are ways around it. Voting was a right only given to those who served in the military. If you don't have skin in the game, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think a lot of good would come from the following:

Only those who register for selective services get the right to vote. Those that become enlisted or are drafted from SS have a double vote for life. Drafts become a regular thing.

It cuts through the idiots who would never enlist anyway. With the SS being optional, the government should willingly draft people more often.

Deferments and such for the draft should be nonexistent. If you're a woman and get pregnant you will still be going to war and your baby will spend the early months of its life in a military nursery and eventually school while you work. If you're a man at college, tough luck. Your country needs you, though you'll get the GI bill benefits for your time done.

This post was partly inspired by Starship Troopers.

Why can't conscription be men only? Since so many women and so many men oppose their daughters going to war as soldiers.

Since conscription is so sexist against women after all if they be included.

If conscription is male only and voting rights involves mandatory conscription. This should keep out about almost all women.

Let the .05% of females with high T serve their country.

What part of the "female suffrage genie" was ambiguous? We can't go that route of ending female suffrage by not allowing them in the military. Male feminists will fight back.

Seriously, the military is easily the antithesis of everything these libtards hold dear. They will avoid it like the plague and is the best way to disenfranchise their voices in voting. This isn't perfect, but if someone is willing to die for his or her country they deserve the right to vote and push their agenda.

As with many other things, liberals try to use an incredibly tiny % of the population to justify social engineering the entire populace. There probably shouldn't be women in the military at all, definitely not in combat roles. Is there some small % of women who are physically capable of it? Of course there are ... outliers always exist. Should society be built around outliers? That's a big part of the battle, isn't it? Leftists are always trying to engineer a society where the vast majority are discriminated against and unhappy, while using a tiny minority to rationalize why it must be so. It's "tyranny of the majority" turned on its head for them ... "tyranny of the minority".

Post: #25

(02-17-2017 10:14 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 08:45 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 06:11 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 03:58 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:29 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  It is better, I like it. I wanted to stay away from this rhetoric however--there are plenty of women in the military who are on the "front lines" which have blurred in recent conflict. Also, there are a lot of people in military who are there for the benefits. Most useless motherfuckers you've ever met. Have no loyalty to country whatsoever. Some are full on SJWs.

Also, this doesn't answer for how long the media and leftist culture will let it fly.
And the original question stands: So how are you planning on stuffing the genie back in the bottle?

Whether we like it or not, the female suffrage genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing that will end this in the eyes of the voting population outside of our fringe groups in the manosphere.

This is fine and there are ways around it. Voting was a right only given to those who served in the military. If you don't have skin in the game, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I think a lot of good would come from the following:

Only those who register for selective services get the right to vote. Those that become enlisted or are drafted from SS have a double vote for life. Drafts become a regular thing.

It cuts through the idiots who would never enlist anyway. With the SS being optional, the government should willingly draft people more often.

Deferments and such for the draft should be nonexistent. If you're a woman and get pregnant you will still be going to war and your baby will spend the early months of its life in a military nursery and eventually school while you work. If you're a man at college, tough luck. Your country needs you, though you'll get the GI bill benefits for your time done.

This post was partly inspired by Starship Troopers.

Why can't conscription be men only? Since so many women and so many men oppose their daughters going to war as soldiers.

Since conscription is so sexist against women after all if they be included.

If conscription is male only and voting rights involves mandatory conscription. This should keep out about almost all women.

Let the .05% of females with high T serve their country.

What part of the "female suffrage genie" was ambiguous? We can't go that route of ending female suffrage by not allowing them in the military. Male feminists will fight back.

Seriously, the military is easily the antithesis of everything these libtards hold dear. They will avoid it like the plague and is the best way to disenfranchise their voices in voting. This isn't perfect, but if someone is willing to die for his or her country they deserve the right to vote and push their agenda.

As with many other things, liberals try to use an incredibly tiny % of the population to justify social engineering the entire populace. There probably shouldn't be women in the military at all, definitely not in combat roles. Is there some small % of women who are physically capable of it? Of course there are ... outliers always exist. Should society be built around outliers? That's a big part of the battle, isn't it? Leftists are always trying to engineer a society where the vast majority are discriminated against and unhappy, while using a tiny minority to rationalize why it must be so. It's "tyranny of the majority" turned on its head for them ... "tyranny of the minority".

I completely agree as well with everything said, but in this day and age you really need to know how to compromise and spin. You know Art of the Deal. If a lady wants to go into a combat role, let her.

What makes one qualified for a combat role you ask? Passing a physically grueling PT course that has the same standards for both sexes.

There's a reason why there weren't any female seals, rangers, or marines until they changed the rules around to make up for their deficiences.

There are completely logical and honest ways to exclude women that don't involve outright saying, " cuz you have a cooter." What is logical commonsense to us is a forgotten art to the commoner. Be more creative!