While it is your right under the 1st Amendment to do so, since you don't know what the hell they would or would not do, you don't have the right to presumably slag them for what they have not done yet. This isn't any sort of Minority Report.
2) I didn't. What I said was, "Many women prefer to vote for one of their male surrogates... This makes it more believable to play the 'damsel in distress' when necessary to gain the upper hand... A female chief executive screeching for higher salaries for women based on a lie wouldn't play very well ("women make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes for the same work" -- which isn't true). If a male demands it, it looks like chivalry. If a woman demands it, it looks like self-interested lying."
Again, you don't know what the hell they would have done. Did Clinton play 'damsel in distress' as Sec. of State? Did Palin as Gov. of Alaska? Haley? Kay Orr? Not a single woman has played that card that you think they have played; Not even Giffords.
You are seriously starting to sound like a person who is bitter and cynical because they were messed over too many times by woman, and then were kicked by other women when they were already down; either that, or acutely chauvinistic.
Of course not. They are not willing to make that lie -- and consequently they do not get a lot of support from women nationally. In fact, most women I know hate those three.
From a woman's viewpoint, it is much preferable to have a chivalrous bootlicker who is a male in office than someone in office who actually knows facts about women.
We live in a matriarchal society.
Very chauvinistic and bitter indeed. And to be honest, an insult to every man who loves the woman they are with.
You're only proving my point here. We live in a matriarchal society.
Am I? For 122 years, women did not have the right to vote. If you were to have been alive back then, would you be perfectly happy with the right to do something that your wife couldn't? Your daughter? Your mother? Your Grandmother?
I seriously doubt that you realize that the deciding vote on ratifying the 19th Amendment came from a man, who at the time they were voting, received a letter from his grandmother begging him to vote yes, because her dying wish was to vote just once in a presidential election before she died.
Would you have been happy if you voted no on that, and it were YOUR grandmother? If so, it would be a disservice to your family to do so.
No. I'd advocate for the twenty-eighth amendment. Instead of relying on some lame-ass "penumbra of the constitution" to grant privacy rights selectively to females and their genitalia as part of a dumb chivalrous ruse, this amendment would actually constitutionally protect and render inviolate rights of all individuals with regards to property and privacy (not only for women and not only in relation to their genitalia). Sex is after all, only a very miniscule aspect of human existence, and not a very important one at that.
You mean like what we already have with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Something we already have on the books now?!? Sounds to me like you're not happy with what you already have, don't want to use what you have, and would spend way too much time complaining about what already works.
Very sad. I almost pity you.
BL.