Should we re-consider giving women the vote?

Question

I'm a female myself, but a young gentleman presented this argument, and unfortunately it actually makes sense...

"To me this is too much of a coincidence that the decline of this country started to happen when we gave women the vote.
I will give you examples to prove my theory. These are as follows:-

Women gained full voting rights in 1928. The following year there was the massive stock market crash which started the great depression of the 30s. Then a world war happened, followed by the Korean War, Suez crisis, followed by great industrial unrest in the 1970s, leading to the winter of discontent in 1978 / 1979. Then a woman prime minister wiped out most of our manufacturing industry, she also took us into the recession of the early 90s. Now we have an expenses scandal, rising unemployment etc etc.

Surely, this is down to women being allowed into cabinet or banking institutes, or just letting them vote. In my view, women should be banned from world politics. Their minds can not handle the pressure.
We should re-think our policy of votes for women. I am sure we would be a much safer world if they were kept out of this equation."

Answer 1

The argument relies heavily on the logical fallacy of false cause. Just because one event preceded another, does not mean there is a causal relationship between them. In fact, the stock market crash was the result of changes in market forces that had nothing to do with women voting. But because there was a coincidental connection in the time period, the arguer is able to claim there's a relationship.



Logical fallacies allow people to make arguments that sound reasonable, even when they aren't.



It's called *** hoc ergo propter hoc. Check out this link:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Answer 2

I have no problem with women voting, the only thing that worries me a little is that they tend to vote with their heart instead of their head. What I would like to see is a minimal IQ test score become a requirement for the right to vote. Set the bar at a level where you have to have at least an IQ of 88 or 119 or whatever most people think should be a minimum level of intelligence to understand issues and their effects on themselves and the country. I am sorry, but a high school drop out on welfare with 3 kids from 3 different sperm donors should not have their vote count as much as a working man or woman who are paying taxes and have a high school education at least.

Answer 3

Giving women the vote did not cause any of those calamities to happen, they happened for reasons that were long in the making, situations MEN created long before that.



Society has taken a fall because people who arent concerned with morals. Sure people have always been immoral, but it was not infectious like it is today. Use to be, people would hide an illegitimate pregnancy, nowadays however it seems most people think nothing of having children, but seem put off by entering into a marriage!



Then there are the welfare programs that actually encourage moronic behaviour by rewarding teens who disobey their parents, and by cutting them a check and letting them make adult decisions on tax payers money.



This widespread immorality means that each generation becomes more degraded as they are raised by imbeciles who have zero standards, zero life experience, and are just plain zeros.

Answer 4

You should probably not exercise your right to vote.



First of all, just like the recent crash in the market, it took YEARS to create that type of disaster...not one year.



Secondly, even though women had the right to vote, I'm sure that many of them did not utilize their right to vote...socialization and gender roles prevented a lot of women from voting, or even wanting to vote.



The recession in the 90s had a bandaid thrown over it, which leaked into the current recession. Have you heard of NINJA loans? The market crashed almost solely due to lending practices. Lending institutions were lending money to people with No Income No Job and No Assets [NINJA]...a practice that was brought to light in 2001 by Republicans, wherein the voted for regulations and the Democrats voted against. That my friend is one of the largest causes of this recent recession.



Brush up on your politics, or don't vote. If you don't know, then you shouldn't vote...I believe that of both genders.

Answer 5

Forgive me if I seem a bit forward, but are you out of your mind? The events listed were unfortunate, yes, but the wars and crises weren't the direct result of women gaining full voting rights. The only reasonable thing mentioned was the female prime minister, and even that was a collective effort done by many, many male minds. I'm highly amused that the Korean War and the "great industrial unrest in the 1970s" are the fault of women being involved in politics. This makes no sense at all. Sorry.

Answer 6

This is ridiculous. The problem is with our government, not the vote. Do you know how little of our actual "votes" even count?



Wars have happened since the beginning of time and Anthropologically speaking, men are the aggressors of war and tend to be undiplomatic and prefer to "peacock" and grab their balls at other countries.



Does this sound like something that women do to you? My point is that wars and economy has nothing to do with women voting. In actuality if the female vote REALLY effected the world that much, chances are it would have gone the opposite way and the country would have been LESS aggressive and more focused on "education" and "economics" since women won the right to vote instead of vice versa.



The problem is not who votes, it's who we are voting FOR that has gone way downhill. A woman in the cabinet or as Secretary of State is LESS likely to get involved in needless wars because women don't usually have that urge to "grab their balls" that overrides sensibility and diplomacy like men tend to do.



Your argument might be valid were it not for the basic characteristics of both sexes. It just doesn't jive.

Answer 7

No. Women had nothing to do with the Great Depression, nor the wars. Besides, if you want to point the finger at women for voting for presidents that made these decisions, remember that they were ALL MEN! So as long as you are going down that road you might as well ask if men should be allowed to be president anymore.

P.S. For the guy who posted his prejudice against women in politics, you are actually right about them being mostly democrat, but I am not. I am a die hard conservative. And I do think men should be allowed to be president, I was just making a point.

Answer 8

That is a terrible, terrible proof.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Also, does WWI ring a bell? No women voters then.

What about a little thing called the industrial revolution? Globalization? Clearly these things had nothing to do with world events in the last hundred years.

Clearly it was all the fault of women.



Powerful little devils, aren't they?

Answer 9

Scandals, corruption, and general social stupidity has a tendency to fade from people's minds the longer ago it happened, probably due to some kind of attention problem in history classes.



This accounts for a lot of nostalgia for time periods we didn't live through, and that coupled with a bit of a lack of appreciation for cause and effect leads to reasoning about how everything would be better if [insert major historical occurrence here] never happened.



In any case, as for general social stupidity immediately preceding Feminism, we had the Gilded 20s, the Teapot Dome scandal, railroad oligopolies, and William Jennings Bryan. I rest my case.

Answer 10

It's called the Post Hoc Fallacy with a few others. LOL



The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.

Answer 11

Whelp, I must admit this is the first I've heard of Cain's stance on II. (I blame the media who deals in sound bytes & not issues) II is a real problem for me & I have trouble supporting someone who supports things like the Dream act & II amnesty. So for me, Cain has the edge because of it.

Answer 12

Men are half of the population and cast half the votes. Women are the other half of the population and cast the other half of all votes. It doesn't make sense to just blame one gender for voting a horrible MAN into office. I'm sure there are plenty of men who voted for those presidents that played roles in the Great Depression and Korean war.

Answer 13

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Except for Thatcher, who was much better at foreign policy than she was at economics, no causal argument was established between women having the vote and all of these crises, most of which happened under men's watch. Unbelievable that you fell for it.



And this is indeed a burning example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I should use this in my next rhetoric class.

Answer 14

so women are responsible for all the wars? and so what if there is one incompetent female prime minister? there have been millions of incompetent males with authority as well...



Finland has a female president and she has been one of the most successful and respected presidents in Finland, so I am happy that women haven't been banned from world politics.

Answer 15

I don't buy that.



In reality, JFK would have never been President if he didn't have the female vote. That was what put him in.

Answer 16

No.



Prior to 1928, there was war, poverty, famine, and disease.

Were those all men's fault? Afterall, women had no vote at that time..

Your friends argument is weak. You're weak for falling for it.

Answer 17

as a woman, you should really not be supporting male conspiracy about how they think theyre better than us. but youre blonde, so maybe that explains it

Answer 18

Aimee you are one hot troll.

Answer 19

This arguement sounds more like its arguing against women being in politics rather than voting.



In my opinion I have a prejudice for women in politics because they are democratic and divide the sexes and pit us against each other. (along with races and classes) When men ruled, men and women respected each other more than we do today.

Answer 20

The only thing this proves is that your brain is smaller than a fish's.

Answer 21

As a man, I would say you answered your own question, at least for yourself.

Answer 22

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Answer 23

i think bad stuff happened all the time before 1928. your friend is misogynistic.

Answer 24

what about all the **** that happens when men do all the voting?

Answer 25

Your rock solid reasoning has compelled me to agree....and not just because you look like you might be rather attractive from your pic.