Am now reading, "Men on Strike". Clearly, it had to be written by a woman, else no one would have given it any credence. So far, the author seems to be on the mark - but I think she's missing the bigger picture. It's not just relationships that women have destroyed - it's the entire Country. But I'm only part way through the book, so maybe she makes the point later.

Thanks again for the reference!

See also http://glpiggy.files.wordpress.com/2012/... for a summary. BTW, men earning "A"s on the economics test outnumbered women by 4.5 to 1.

see also: http://www.vietnetlinks.com/thuvien/What......

for the following datum: On a test of economics knowledge...
Females are more likely to get an “F” than males (adults: 42% vs. 15%; students: 67% vs. 54%)

That is, the average adult female is almost THREE TIMES more likely to have a failing knowledge than is a corresponding male. Maybe women really DO believe that as long as they have checks they have money?

Feel free to read the research for yourself.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...

I tried to edit the foregoing to correct an error. The study covered the period from 1870 to 1940 and did NOT include Hawaii and Alaska. So the number of governments where deficits increased after women got the vote should be 49, not 51.

The conclusion was not drawn from thin air. It is rather based on two major sources: One is the current makeup of the two major political parties and their associated voting patterns. In 2008 and 2012, Obama was elected, and re-elected, by a majority of the majority, along with minorities and majorities of minorities. The gender gap in the last election was roughly 20% Had women voted in concert with men, Obama would not have had a second term - nor even a first term, for that matter. Will anyone argue that Democrats have not been the party of socialism for decades? Or that Republicans are now following their lead for fear of becoming the party of irrelevancy? What group has the power to dictate results at the polls? Do blacks? Men? Homosexuals? Yes. But only in league with a substantial block of the majority: women. And it is only the majority that can ignore all other agenda and vote for themselves what they want from the public treasury.

The second datum is a study done by University of Chicago that documented the fact that all the state and territorial governments, and the federal government itself, ran small and stable deficits from the time of their founding until women got the vote. That pattern was established for a period of roughly 100 to 150 years. Women did not get the vote all at once. As pointed out, Wyoming accorded women the vote in 1869 - more than 50 years before the feds got around to it. Other states likewise granted women the vote over that period of 50 years in a staggered pattern. In each case (according to the research, without exception) the deficits of the various governments began to rise following the women being allowed to vote.

This is not necessarily iron-clad proof that the women's vote was responsible - but where some 51 cases of something occur independently and uniformly, and without counter-example, one would have to be a blinkered fool not to give substantial weight to the case. And what alternative is there? Being spread out over time eliminates the possibility that some single outside event caused the deficits. For example, had all the women gotten the vote simultaneously in 1920, followed by rising deficits, it might be some factor in world economics driving all the deficits without regard to whether women voted or not.

In some regard, you are of course, correct. The majority of congress was, is and shall be for some time, predominantly male. Yet the job includes representing the constituency. If that constituency is demanding more welfare programs, a self-interested congressional representative will vote in such a way as to be re-elected. One who has the greater interests of the Country at heart in a liberal district, and refuses to "go along to get along", will be voted out by the majority women. Only in a few isolated cases (Ron Paul) have representatives been able to survive the onslaught of female voters.

Finally, I am not casting stones at women. They are acting in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. I've already mentioned that the average American (regardless of gender) is a moron. But suppose they are only poor at mathematics, don't think much about the future, don't understand economics and have bills to pay they cannot afford. Do you not think that such people would tend to vote in favor of any program that helps them? Instant gratification has killed more than one budget. "Buy now, pay later"... except that now it IS later, the bills are due and we are going into debt faster than ever.

Too, the evolution of women over the past 100,000 years has been different from men. It is no accident that the average male is stronger, or that the average female is better at communication. (Feel free to do your own research on those topics.) The bottom line is that women, generally, are more social (and socialistic) than men. It is a skill that women have depended upon for survival as surely as men have depended on physical strength.

So it is that women, being more risk averse than men, looking for solutions through social(ism) avenues naturally see nothing wrong with setting up programs that benefit them, never giving a thought to the future.

This lack of foresight will be the ruin of us all, and it is people now living, men and women, who will feel the full brunt of the lack of perspicacity.

Naturally, if someone has countering data, I am more than happy to review it. But given the response of some on this forum, I feel obligated to point out that saying, "That's sexist" is NOT evidence of anything but personal bias.