I guess I am not alone!

Some folks just keep stirring it.

 

On a real "woman" kick, huh?

 

My wife just happens to agree with you that most women are this way. She fears a Hillary presidency for our nation.

 

I've read that drinking prohibitions were women-driven, but is there really any evidence for other things like smoking bans and gun registration? What's a hair-dressing license, anyway?

 

Ah yes, blame women for legislation designed to curb the excesses of men.

 

Dale,
No surprise to me about John Adams.

Here are a few other people, besides women, who could not vote in colonial America: Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, Catholics. (And most of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, did not want this changed.)

The ONLY white men allowed to vote were over 21 AND who owned the equivalent of about 50 acres of land. That effectively let out MOST white men, too.
Maybe a lot of society's ills now stem from letting white men who own less than 50 acres vote! LOL

(And not so many things were voted on to begin with. For example, we did not vote for U.S. Senators till the 1913 Constitutional Amendment.)

 

Doubtful that she would run, though. I would vote for a Margaret Thatcher.
Is political leadership a natural skill of every man you have met?

 

One of the greatest national leaders and the co-architect of the downfall of communism was a woman. Margaret Thatcher was the epitome of a strong national leader.

Skilled? I think so.

 

This, by its nature, is an empirical question. Approaching it theoretically is hopeless.

And approaching it empirically is hopeless, too. We all know women who have done well in leadership and we all know men who did poorly. To have so great and accurate a sampling as to be able to quanitfy the results coherently is a task too massive for the answers to justify.

Theologically, I will say that it is in the nature of a couple to fight over authority. But then, there's always a fight whenever there is an authoritator and an authoritatee.

 

I am afraid it is not as simple as that Karen. The requirements for voting differed from state to state. There was a holdover colonial requirement that you had to own land or personal property worth 40-50 pounds but almost any white male old enough could accumulate that. By 1800 most states had changed those laws. Most history books estimate that between 50 and 97 percent of the white male citizens could vote although it differred in different states.

Free black Americans were specifically given the right to vote in the state constitutions of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Hampshire, New York, and Maryland. In fact South Carolina was the only state that prohibited free blacks from voting. In 1800 roughly 10% of the blacks in the United States were free. Some states did take away the right of free blacks to vote. North Carolina did so in 1835 and Maryland did in 1809.

And New Jersey allowed women to vote as long as they met the property requirement.

I guess it is not all black and white. ok bad pun.

 

My wife's main concern is that she thinks there are few women who would be capable of sending our kids into war when the time comes. She bases that on two things: The psychology most women present, and the anecdotal evidence that she has compiled from being in charge of the local football boosters. We had the parents' meeting last night and showed a film on the dangers of neck injuries and the importance of keeping your head up when you tackle. The film showed some samples of players making hits that made them parplegics. Most of the parents (all the men, and about half the women) were interested in preventing neck injuries. But, a lot of the mothers at that point wanted to pull their kids out of the football program and put them into soccer. One mother was upset because her kid was going to be on J-V instead of C-Team because it's his first year. Never mind that the kid us HUGE, and most of the C-team is tiny kids who haven't started their growth spurts yet. True, the C-team is for those with no experience in football and this kid has no experience, but he weighs over 300 pounds, and the second biggest player is 130 pounds. (There ARE unwritten rules.)

By the same token, what happens when it becomes, "Oh, our military boys and girls might get hurt! We can talk it out!"

 

North Carolina Tentmaker,
You are very correct. There were many differences, and a change over time. Note that I was referring to colonial America.
In my opinion, my general point stands, in spite of not as much detail as you provide.

 

I was just about to make this point...well put.

Mrs. Thatcher paid a visit to my college back in the dark ages (1992). I had graduated 2 years earlier, but was there that day for her visit. (got to shake her hand, even!)

Even though I got only a glimpse firsthand of her as a person and world leader (studied her much more via news and the like during her tenure), I was amazed at her calm, assured sense of leadership.

Boy, was she effective. Thank God she was leading Great Britain during that pivotal era.

 

Regarding voting records, here is a link to an 1893 study on voting. It states that, if I am reading correctly, that 6-10 % of the white population voted. How that translates to COULD vote, I do not know, although the article makes some assumptions that perhaps 1/3 of eligible voters did so.
It assumes that white male voters were about 25 % of the total white population.
It seems to be far less than the 50 to 97 % of white male citizens from your sources.

www.dinsdoc.com/tyler-6.htm

 

Considering all of the candidates available today I would be tickled pink to vote for Margeret..:thumbs: :godisgood:

 

I doubt I'd vote for the creature under any circumstances, but there's no denying the fact that she was one tough old bird. Had the cold war come to blows, I don't think she would have had the slightest reservation about sending the boys off to fight.

 

Most people who can vote, don't. That includes men and women. So, say, in Dale's perfect world, women don't vote, that leaves only a handful of men to choose our next president. Not exactly our democracy at work, is it? Better to have everyone's input on who our next leader should be, even if they base their decisions on personal preferences and not facts. And that goes for men AND women. No way do I want Hillary for president, and no way would I make a good leader, but to say women can't lead based on their gender?
I translated this for you, Dale; Baaa, baaa, baaaa.

Sopranette