Before women got the vote, many intelligent women did not want them to get it. They thought they had more important things to do than get involved in politics.
I known enough women to realize why they have been denied the vote: many of them are natural socialists. One of my girlfriends, who became a libertarian, believed many women are natural socialists, and she believed it because she had been one before she overcame it.
All these women I have known, who are natural socialists, operated on the same irrational, fuzzy-minded beliefs: I am supposed to get back ten times more than I give.
In other words, people are supposed to support and subsidize them, but their support and subsidizing others is supposed to be a fraction of what they get.
I recently met a very intelligent woman who told me she was for national health care. When I gently asked her if she understood supply and demand, she admitted she did not.
I told her that while the government can control supply, it cannot control demand. It can never control demand. Since under national health care, people will perceive cost as dropping to zero, demand will skyrocket.
Since the government knows this will happen, rationing will happen, because of shortages. Sarah Palin, who understood this, correctly called these rationing bodies “death panels.”
I’m not sure this woman believed me, but when I asked her if she would take a 50% cut in pay to subsidize everyone’s health care, would she do it? She told me “that wouldn’t happen,” which of course was not the question,
I see the same beliefs among women when it comes to not understanding they cannot have a career and children at the same time. “If you quit work, and believe by law that your job should be waiting for you when you come back,” I’ve told them, “do you realize you are forcing your coworkers to cover your job, not get paid for it, and support your with their money if you get pregnancy pay?”
They’ve never looked at it that way, and don’t seem to think it’s unfair until I ask them if they should be forced to take a large pay cut to subsidize other women taking off work for two years to have a kid. They’re not for that because of what I wrote: I should get ten times more than I give.
Socialism is a female thing, even if men believe in it: we should by law be forced to share and do favors for another. We should be happy to do it and not feel resentful. And of course, socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.
Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our evil government. Had it stayed out of the free market, I wouldn’t be surprised if the average salary would be $70,000 a year.
I estimate now less than five percent of men can support a family on their own. Yet I see meet women who think they supposed to be supported by men and are in a rage at them this isn’t happening (they’re also in rage when some guy making $75,000 a year is 5’6” and married to an Asian woman).
Since this support can no longer happen, what these women do is marry the State. They become wards of the State and live on food stamps, in subsidized housing, with a medical card, and aid for their children. A life like this does not get better; it gets worse.
One woman I know quite well believes it is all supposed to be free for her: free food, free utilities, a free apartment, free nice furniture. Of course, she is married to the State.
That’s why women have traditionally been denied the vote. A society run solely by women – a socialist society – would be a destroyed society.