Apparently this is a thing now. I have heard it suggested humorously for many years, and quarter-seriously by some men looking at the voting demographics and not liking the results. The premise seems to be that women are fooled by charismatic charlatans who can't deliver on what they promised. Well they are. But this is one of the main ways that men get to have sex, so you may not want to advertise the point too loudly. This also points up a major weakness of the scheme, that men also get taken in by women who um, don't necessarily have their best interests at heart. Or by men who have great advice what will work with women.
I imagine you could ask advertisers for their opinion who would tell you with a straight face "Oh! Oh sure! Men never spend their money on stupid things, which is what makes our job so hard!"
Thus the best you can manage at that point is "Okay, men are also fooled by politicians and stupid ideas, but women are fooled more often." Pretend it's true. How are you going to repeal the amendment? Where are you going to find the votes for that, even in Congress which is predominantly male. Secret ballot? How are 74 men going to convince their wives and daughters that they weren't one of the 67 who voted for it? But say it works by some wild chance. Now you have 100,000,000 angry women who will then blame men - with some justification - for everything that goes wrong. I mean, even more than they do now. Tell you what, Mack. Why don't you find that country and get back to me how moving there worked out for ya.
So it's obviously trolling women to convince them everything would be better if they were more like men. Well. I suppose that would be a refreshing change from what I have been hearing from women since fifth grade, but I think that will have the same success rate as trying to repeal the 19th. Shaming people always works so well, y'know?
4 comments:
The amazing thing is that it was ever ratified in the first place. 100% men voted to dilute their voting power by half; and not as the result of a defeat war, nor extortion, nor violence of any kind. There's probably never been a more generous act in human history, and done almost entirely out of a sense of justice. Somewhat to dilute the votes of immigrants, who tended male then as now.
Now I've got the song "Women!" from "The Merry Widow" stuck in my head!
That's right. Blame me for that.
For all the bluster, I think at the end of the day most people realize their political alliances aren’t solely (or even primarily) based on gender, which renders much of these discussions moot.
The election of Mamdani as mayor of NYC helped kick this latest discussion off, because 84% of women under 30 voted for him. However, 67% of young men also voted for him, which suggests he wins even if women couldn’t vote at all. I have seen very few people acknowledge this reality when discussing repealing the 19th.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/young-voters-power-mamdani-victory-shape-key-2025-elections
But realistically you can mostly predict where someone falls on the political spectrum, it only if you have 4-5 pieces of information about them: race, gender, age, education level and where they live. A 25 year old college educated black male living in Chicago is going to be much more like his female counterpart than a 70 year old white male living in rural Wyoming. Gender helps with the prediction, but in isolation it tells you very little.
Post a Comment