[–] BigFatDaddy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not a damn thing.

[–] NumbDigger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The hard part is not telling everybody you meet IRL.

[–] BigFatDaddy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nah, I just tell people. Restrict voting to white male landowners of good moral character.

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

White women back in the day would normally vote for the same things as their white husbands... so thats just more votes for what white men want.

Shit went off the rails pretty quick though when divorce rates and single motherhood started to sky rocket.

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Most white women didn't want the right to vote. Also, by voting as their husband it made no difference (before vs after suffrage). By voting contrary to their husband they cancelled each other out. Which would seemingly be harmful.

Shit went off the rails pretty quick though when divorce rates and single motherhood started to sky rocket.

Which means single women is the only meaningful power base created by Women's Suffrage.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me.

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I just got a chance to remember the point I was originally alluding to.

When either couples vote for the same thing that effectively double the votes against non white interests. Which would have been super useful these days when there are so many anti white causes.

What I was getting at was that back when suffrage was New it had amazing potential to make white people more powerful. I think (((someone))) figures this out and did their absolute best to put the interests of white men and women at odds to negate as many votes as possible.

Putting their interests at odds also led to the added bonus of disrupting white families and weakening households.

In short, Women’s suffrage had amazing potential to further the white races agenda. But (((they))) don’t want that so the white family unit was beaten, burned, and destroyed.

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

sounds like you’re agreeing with me

I am, just in more words.

[–] Scablifter 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The first womens refuge was started in the UK by a feminist, Erin Pizzey.

The feminists loved her until she started to say that women are just as capable as being abusers as men are, thats when the screaming and yelling started. Dog shit was pushed through her front door, her children were attacked in the street as they walked to school and her cat was beaten to death.

All done by fair minded left wing women who only want to get a just society

[–] IheartSwimming 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My own research indicates it has only ever been harmful to every society which has embraced it.

What exactly were you researching?

[–] NoisyCricket [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Tried to find any historical events in which Women's Suffrage distinctly made a positive outcome for society. Granted my view of positive is biased based on my own perspective and biases. While my efforts largely centered on the US, I have been unable to find a singular vote anywhere in which I can point to a female voter demographic and declare "we" have been saved by the female vote. Generally, what I find is that everything has been made worse. Again - see "my own perspective and biases."

Also worth pointing out that this is something I've casually looked at off and on over the last two years. I don't want to present that I've focused years of effort here. That said, you understand the plea and my post to prove me wrong. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. Though I strongly suspect I'm correct.

[–] Weasel_Soup 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Some men, usually called cucks, like strong dominant women. A lot of manly men died in WW2. It is not a benefit, but the only thing I could think off.