I realise this will probably go way above most people's heads here, but I'm going to post it nonetheless.
>"...recent research suggests that deontological moral decision-making may have evolved, in part, to communicate trustworthiness to conspecifics, thereby facilitating cooperative relations [...] Additionally, women reported greater dislike for targets whose decisions were consistent with utilitarianism than men. Results suggest that deontological moral reasoning evolved, in part, to facilitate positive relations among conspecifics and aid group living and that women may be particularly sensitive to the implications of the various motives underlying moral decision-making."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mitch_Brown4/publication/311166752_The_Adaptive_Utility_of_Deontology_Deontological_Moral_Decision-Making_Fosters_Perceptions_of_Trust_and_Likeability/links/5842f33708ae2d2175637684.pdf?origin=publication_detail
>>133150976
Because women are smarter and more empathic than m*n
>>133150976
MUUUUHHHHHH DIIIIIICCCKKKKK
we should revoke n charge women for all welfare n alimony +interest
>>133150976
you are asking the wrong question:
why do we let politicians drive a wedge between men and women?
what we need is family voting system. if you think about it this was pretty much the case until the full suffrage (women were all married and the men had the vote).
what's good for men is not necessarily good for women and vice versa. however, what's good for the family is good for everyone and for nation.
you want a vote? get married and have a kid.
>>133150976
Because we can't prevent them from doing so. Literally half of voters would be inherently against this and you can't do anything about it.
>>133151911
They are both physically and intellectually weaker than men. It's not a question of how, but a question of when.
>>133151443
>>133152043
In general I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would take a long time... Or a dictatorship which reforms.
>>133152292
good post and exactly my views on this matter
>>133150976
>>133151255
S T I C C
T
I
C
C
NORMIE STICCLOVERS GET OUT
>>133151138
Faggot detected.
>>133150976
Women's suffrage was politically and ideologically inevitable once suffrage expanded past the landowner standard (and even then women sometimes owned land and could vote; actual sex bans weren't until a little later), and any political or ideological basis for repealing it would inevitably take a lot of men with it barring the adoption of metaphysical/religious ideas about sex.
The people who say everything was fucked up by the enlightenment are onto something if you lean this way, patriarchy can't consistently coexist with an otherwise egalitarian social order; saying men should rule over women only really stands if you also say some men should rule over other men.
>>133156209
you can under family rule.
>>133150976
all the answers
>>133152870
>captcha is 16000 skell
>skell
What did it mean by this?
Because they have a different outlook on things and their different perspective and way of thinking are necessary.
>>133157406
>their different perspective and way of thinking are necessary
Not for making important national decisions like who the next president is.
>le cuck nationalist kekistani
back to redd*t
>>133152292
not wrong but I feel like it should be up to the family to decide who votes
then again, they should generally discuss who the voter of the family is going to vote for
also
>Wives would present the family in matters of the faith
if the man is supposed to be the head of the family then there is no reason why the woman should represent it in faith
Very conservatively spoken, women shouldn't even teach about anything related to religion
>>133150976
Is that the girl from King Kong?
>>133151255
>
They even have glowing eyes to show you their not human.