Instigator / Pro

Women’s suffrage was a mistake


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 6 votes and 20 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Women got the right to vote in America on August 18, 1920. [1] That same year alcohol became illegal, giving rise to organized crime. [2] This was just the beginning of the damage caused to society by allowing women to vote. They just aren’t suited to make policy decisions generally speaking.


It’s no mystery that women are more likely than men to lean left on policy issues.[3] I don’t think my opponent will contest this. It’s not only backed up by every study available on demographics of the voting public, but it’s plainly obvious.They don’t just vote for more liberal candidates but politicians on both sides of the aisle have to pander to the interests of women. This means that normally conservative candidates will have to be account for the female vote by adopting more liberal policies.  I am of course speaking specifically of the pro liberal policies that are seemingly pro women and not all liberal policies.We’ll get to why this is bad in a moment. We’ll continue talking about a few seemingly unrelated things and then connect them all as we go along.Risk describes risk compensation this way:

The theory of risk compensation ­suggests people adjust their behavior according to perceived risk. Where people perceive greater risk they act more cautiously. When they feel more protected they act less careful.”[4]

This effect has been observed in a variety of ways and is a natural human phenomenon. The effect is especially strong when your perceived level of protection does not apply to other people who your actions could harm. A recent study shows that the perceived safety of SUV causes drivers to become more reckless unnecessarily putting their life as well as the lives of others on the road in more danger. The abstract for this study says:

“In this research a model developed by Levitt and Poter (2001) for drinking drivers is applied to assessing the Peltzman Effect of SUVs and Passenger Cars with a set of data characteristics to control for preexisting risk taking behavior. It was found that indeed SUVs pose an externality hazard on passenger cars and that SUV drivers are 2.7 times more likely to cause a fatal crash compared to passenger cars.”[5]

Before anti-lock brakes came standard on every car, making braking easier there was a study conducted on taxi drivers. Over a 36 month period of time there was observed a slight increase in accidents on the taxis with ABS systems. Among the civilian cars observed the rate of accidents for cars with ABS and without remained the same, also suggesting a compensatory effect.[6]A study in England showed that motorists would be more cautious passing unhelmeted motorcycles slower and at a further distance than helmeted bikers. [7]You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping?FAMILY MATTERSIt’s better for children when families stay together. The median income for single parent homes is $35,000 a year compared to $85,000 for married couples. [8]The poverty rate for single mother families is 36% which is 5 times higher than for married families. Almosts 32% of single mother homes were food insecure. Meaning they were struggling to even eat or feed their children.63% of youth suicides are from children in fatherless homes.90% of homeless children are from single parent homes.71% of high school dropouts are from single parent homes.85% of youth in prison come from single mothers.Living in a single parent home doubles the likelihood a child will be abused.71% of teen pregnancies come from fatherless homes. [9]I think we can see from this that keeping families together is good for children which means it is good for society and judging by the poverty rate of broken homes, better for the mothers as well.HYPERGAMYHypergamy is a theory of mate selection used by adult human females. It refers to the desire of women to mate with men of a higher social status as opposed to the mating strategy of men which prefer women who show signs of fertility.[10]Studies have shown that women who move up in social status report their pool of acceptable partners shrinks, while men report the opposite phenomenon: “As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases". In contrast, 90 percent of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases”[11].Gilles Saint-Paul has argued that female hypergamy happens because of the lost mating opportunity In monogamous relationships due to the smaller windows of fertility. Marriage reduces the likelihood that a woman will become pregnant by the highest status make possible. [12]This is where the redpoll philosophy of “alpha fvcks Beta Bvcks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.There is a simple supply and demand principle at play here that explains why women would marry a lower quality male than they can have sex with. It is because a man can impregnate many women but a woman can only get pregnant by one man at a time.GIRL POWERThese things aren’t necessarily occurring at a conscious level. Just like risk compensation doesn’t happen at a conscious level, but science tells us, this stuff is happening with that in mind we can also expect women to pursue politics in a way that molds the sexual market place in their favor.The one thing that in the surface seems better than Beta Bucks Alpha Fvcks would be if you could just screw whoever you wanted without having to deal with the Beta for his money. This is how our current system came into play.After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces. They could now get a cut of their husbands income merely because they got “bored” with the marriage.A decade after getting the vote, women pushed for laws that would ensure men paid massive amounts of child support so women could go off and apply their hypergamous sexual strategy.[13]It wasn’t long before food stamps were a huge thing and public housing assistance. As we discussed in risk compensation when we give people huge safety nets, it encourages reckless behavior. Women have themselves a bunch of safety nets, ensuring that their hypergamy would not be reigned in by the institution of marriage. A very important institution for the reasons stated earlier.In 1920 just as women were about to take the reigns of political power, the marriage rate was 12 per every 10,000. Divorce rates were .9 per 10,000.Today marriage rates are 6.8 and divorce rates are at 3.4. The safety nets have certainly caused some risk compensation and subsidized the risky hypergamous behavior of women. This is a detriment to society for previously mentioned reasons.Sources, Ian (2007). "Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 39 (2): 417–25., J. M. (1987). "Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16 (5): 425–444. doi:10.1007/BF01541424. PMID 3689109.
I thank Wylted for this debate and I hope it is a good one. Wylted said in the comments that his position in this debate is that women suffrage has caused more harm, than it has more good. In other words, if I prove that more good has come of it, I win. If I prevent Wylted from proving more harm came from women suffrage (I'll just call it WS from now on), I win. With that in mind, let us tackle Wylted's first round and I will state my case.

Women gained the right to vote with the Nineteenth Amendment. The Amendment was adopted on August 18, 1920. The Amendment was a culmination of the WS movement. Since then, women became a prominent force in politics, and as Wylted put it, politicians now have to "pander to the interests of women." We'll get to this later, so lets focus on the quote Wylted has about Prohibition.

Wylted says, or at least endorses the fact that women gained the right to vote in 1920, and the same year alcohol became illegal. However, this is false, or at least the point it's trying to make is flawed at best. The Eighteenth Amendment gained steam in 1917, where what would become the Amendment was passed in the House, and the Amendment was ratified in 1919. Later, the Volstead Act passed in January of 1920. I am curious of the point Wylted was going to make, as Prohibition was going to be lawful with or without WS.

But let us assume that women had a more than strong role in the Prohibition movement. Although I am against Prohibition, and it was a stupid law, there was some benefit it served to America. Namely, at the very least, it reduced deaths by liver cirrhosis dropped drastically [1].

Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. 
Perhaps Prohibition could have succeeded in more favorable culture, but to say Prohibition had no benefit is simply false.

Wylted: Women are Liberal

I don't deny that women tend to be liberal, but I truly don't understand Wylted's point. He acts as though Liberal policies harm America, more than it has helped, which is false. I will also note that Prohibition was not especially a Republican or Democrat policy, as both parties had strong Prohibition supporting factions. I don't think Wylted would disagree that such presidents like FDR, LBJ or JFK were more harmful than helpful. Teddie Roosevelt also came out in favor of WS [2]. Under Teddie Roosevelt, America had become a very wealthy nation and would start to have a impact on the world stage. FDR, at the very least, lead the nation out of the Great Depression and through World War 2, JFK had landed American feet on the moon, and LBJ led economic reform. Under all the Presidents I mentioned, America's GDP have risen [3]. I apologize for the messy graph, but as you can see, after 1930, and especially after WW2, America experienced rapid growth. 

Afterwards, Wylted says that single parent homes are a worst environment to raise children. I agree, however, divorce rates only began to rise to what they what now around the 70s [4]. They were pretty low in the years after 1920. Babies being born into unmarried mothers were also low in the 60s and began to rise later. What Wylted is referring to has no relation to WS. I don't see the relevancy in Wylted's Hypergamy argument, but it appears he correlates WS and divorce but doesn't say how or why they connect. For example, Wylted would like you to think when WS happened, divorce rates went up, but they only went up at the rate they were going before the 20s. It is only later, during the 70s, that divorce rates skyrocket.

Round 2
Extend, I guess.
Round 3
Round 4