23:27  |  10 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate


The patronising wooing of women by David Cameron suggests he thinks they are stupid. Are they? Will they vote for him because they think he is a good-looking kind-seeming man who will look after them and protect them and their children because he has a disabled son? Will they vote for him because he is seen to do the dishes and help with the housework even though he has no policies and won't even talk about cutting taxes? Is the undecided female voter really as stupid as all that? If someone is undecided should they be voting at all? People (male or female) who pay no taxes and don't know what's good for them or have no thought-through view about what is good for society or the country should not have the vote, should they? The male/female ratio of the membership here is currently approximately 4:1 (22 November 2007). Women are just not interested, are they? Or are too busy? Or don't care? Or cannot discuss politics without taking disagreement with their views as a personal insult?
Vote: Should women have been given the vote?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 90% No 10%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Andromeda 25-Mar-2009 16:45
"Stuartec" has declared the question to be "out of order". What does this mean? That it should not even have been asked? 5% of membership opinion as at 25 March 2009 voted NO so it was a question well worth asking! Showing totalitarian tendencies here ill becomes anyone.
stuartac 24-Mar-2009 11:44
Male chauvinism doesn't become you.

By denigrating the females you are missing something that society has kept subjugated for centuries.

The feminine is not only the stronger sex but is the primary sex. Under harsh conditions its the female that survives. The feminines main principle is that of Love. The masculines is strength. Just as the pen is mightier than the sword so Love trumps strength. On average women live 10 years longer than their counterpart. The word widow applies only to women. Why? because they outlive their husbands.

Take a look at our language for hints. Man is not another term for male it is generic and stems from human. 'Man' or the male is a subset of 'woman'. Incidentally 'woman' is misspelt, it was once 'wombman' or a member of the species 'man' or human that has a womb. So where does that leave man?? The word 'male' is a subset of the word 'female'. The word 'male' comes from the old French. In modern French it means 'evil; harm', so what happened in France to make the women categorise the menfolk thus?. 'He' is a subset of the word 'she'.

So take a look at the biological structure of men and women and you will see that men are just mutants of the original feminine structure. Don't believe me? OK! The men have redundant nipples/breasts. The male testicles before descent originate where the ovaries are. The penis is an enlarged clitoris. The shaft of the penis is an extension of the vagina. The seam that runs from the male anus to the penis is the vestige of the female body that has fused together. In an absolute crisis of the human species you only need one 'man'.

The proposer of this discussion, 'Should women have been given the vote?' is blatantly breaking the sexual discrimination statute. Anyone who tries to marginalise a section of society by picking on them is afraid of them. Highlighting trivial differences serves to highlight your misunderstanding of the 'opposition'. And what is this 'club' of which you are obviously a member that you quote "The male/female ratio of the membership here is currently approximately 4:1 (22 November 2007)"??

If I find you are a member of the same club as me then I tender my resignation.

If you are referring to the fact that women don't vote in the same numbers as men then they have more sense, they are better discerners of true intent. The houses of parliament are infested with traitors who are there for personal gains and do not represent the people who put them there, but are bought and paid for by the EU.

I declare this debate to be out of order by furthering hate and discrimination against a section of society of which we are all members. In case you hadn't notice the women did get the vote. And those of us who pay no taxes and don't know what's good for us and have no thought-through view about what is good for society or the country have the vote as well.
mikestuckey 15-Sep-2008 0:30
There are far too many fatherless families. Women & the System seem to be of the opinion that children don't need a father-figure. This, alone proves that their judgement is massively flawed; our children are out of control, because the paternal guidance has been taken from them. And that is why, women should not continue to have a say in how society is run. They do massive harm to their children, not to mention the father's that, are treated like worthless dirt, with absolutely no feelings whatsoever. Our society has been shaped by divorced women. We do not have the cohesion that once was. Women, with the willing aid of the System are causing great damage. They have proven to be a danger to humanity, therefore their vote is too great a risk.
Herb 1-Dec-2007 4:58
Of course women should have the vote.

Interestingly, an aunt of mine (born somewhere around 1880) was against it - she told me that she considered most women to be too scatterbrained to merit it. My own experiences in life tell me that my aunt was mistaken and that even if a few women are scatterbrained, so are at least as many men. A particular example of a scatterbrained man is David Cameron.

Cameron's latest idea is to send British troops to the Balkans to make sure that the Serbs (and, by implication the Russians too) don't interfere with Kosovo's becoming independent. In short he imagines that he should be allowed to risk, even provoke, over Kosovo, a war with Russia. If that happens, Osama bin Laden and his ilk will rejoice. To them it will be an even better development than Kosovo being turned into Europe's newest Muslim country, which, apparently David Cameron wants.

If Cameron's ideas aren't scatterbrained, I don't know what is. And this particular one about sending British soldiers to the Balkans isn't just scatterbrained - it's foolish and gravely dangerous.

We should leave the Kosovo business to be sorted out by the Serbs and Russians. They have a far better grasp of what's at stake than we do, and we should support them. They'll produce a much better result than the politically correct Bill Clinton and the U.N. did.
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award