No, it doesn't make sense.
But LOTS of women do it.
Voting for Obama didn't make sense...

Potato. Potato.

We did that already.

But it's interesting that the Feral Government needed the passage of the 18th Amendment to ban booze, but now says no amendment is necessary to ban other drugs. All goes back to Wickard v. Filburn and the most misbegotten decision in the history of the Supreme Court - a finding that a farmer, growing wheat on his own farm for his own use, not one kernel ever to leave his farm, not one kernel ever to be bought or sold, was, in judicial fact, engaging in "interstate commerce". Since FDR blackmailed the Court into that decision, the entire government has been upside down.

Men are "checking out" of the system. I recommend the book, "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters" for a light treatment of the situation.

I never said women were "solely" to blame. There are a lot of stupid men out there too.

But the representatives were selected by voters, the majority of voters are female, and the gender gap is on the order of 20%. So the MAJORITY of women and a MINORITY of men are to blame for the Demoncrat imbroglio.

If you take the vote away from men, you get the same result. If you take the vote away from women, would any Democrat ever be elected?

I think the guy would be much quicker, since he knows where his house is on the map. Under the circumstances you've described, when she asks, "Can you show me on the map where I need to go", his answer might be, "You need to go HERE (my house). You ready?"

As for drawing the water parallel to the bottom of the glass - of course you wouldn't do that. No woman would ever do that... AFTER READING THE ANSWER!

It's the sort of thing that no woman is going to ADMIT she would have done. Even if there are a dozen witnesses. Even if you have it on video. Once the mistake is pointed out, there are a million "excuses" why the wrong answer was chosen - but the bottom line is, it's a screw up that women make frequently. The brains are different.

But maybe I just made the whole thing up?

Ha!

You should know better by now.
http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1993/...
http://books.google.com/books?id=oaNy_8F...
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/st...

The reason this FACT stuck with me is because it's so counter-intuitive. Of COURSE a college-level female can predict that the water level remains horizontal when the glass is tipped... except half of them don't.

You make it sound as if women got nothing out of the deal.

In fact, the law clearly codified the duties of each in marriage. The duty of the man was to provide and protect. The duty of the woman was to obey.

The development of communication skills goes back more than a few "centuries"... to near the time when Neanderthals were exiting the scene. A woman who ingratiated herself to other women might count on their support in the event that her mate died (while he was out trying to get food to feed her). Guess that makes women the first socialists... and that hasn't changed.

In comparison to men, women don't care about freedom. Look at the Democrat party. Mostly women. Tell me that freedom is high on their list (as they ram Obamacare down your throat). Look at the Libertarian party - OVERWHELMINGLY male. That's no accident. Women will happily sell themselves into slavery, socialism, marxism, indentured servitude, whatever, to anyone who can make a meaningful promise to protect and provide for them. What's changed is that men have allowed women to have power over them (through government), and the women have decided they want their end of the bargain in exchange... for... NOTHING.

What you fail to recognize in your "prisoner" statement is that for most of the history of the species, women's children would NOT have survived without a male sponsor. So it's not that men ran out and enslaved women. It's rather that women seduced men, had to make themselves useful to men so that men would keep them around. If they did, their genes were passed on. Women who did not attempt to please men might have sex, might have children, but their children were far less likely to survive. That's nature - and one might argue, the free market in action - not male dominance.

It's the system that worked for 100,000 years. Only in the past 100 years have women decided they can get everything they want for FREE by having the government do their dirty work.

But Darwin will not be denied.

The gross excess of western women, most prominently American women, have doomed the economic system. When the dollars crashes (and it will), money won't mean anything... the government won't mean much either, and women will be right back trying to be useful to men.

But that may be a longer road than most women think.

Today's men (and I'm not talking about the old farts - I'm talking the 20-30 somethings) don't have much use for women. Sure, if the sex urge hits, they pick one up, bang her like a drum and turn her loose. But the nuclear family? Fuggidaboutit! Why should they get married if they're only setting themselves up for a legal takedown? For that matter, why work to get a good paying job? Support kids? Let the Ho do that. Why mess with all that "kids" stuff anyway? That's what the women want. So get a low-paying job that meets basic needs, play video games, drink beer and bang a Ho once in a while. Men have been absolved of their responsibilities because they no longer get anything out of the system.

Yeah, those women were geniuses!

BTW, most of what I've just said can be found in the pages of Helen Smith's book, "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters". If you have a problem with any of it, take it up with her.