Women: The Source of Big Government?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Apparently, right-wing economist John R. Lott, Jr., in his most recent book entitled Freedomnomics, has a chapter that argues:

Women's suffrage is responsible for the massive growth in the size, scope, intrusiveness and pervasiveness of government experienced by the USA since dawn of the 20th century.

He provides numerous data points, at both the state and federal levels, that shows a strong correlation between the growth of government and women being granted the right to vote. In essence, he is suggesting that the psychological and experiental qualities that women have -- particularly when single and especially after being divorced -- encourage them to vote for those candidates who propose and support expanded government. This has led, he argues, to a massive increase in the size, scope, and role of government (which, as a free-market anti-tax economist he does not like).

What say you?

[InsaneApache]

I'd like to post a full and frank reply, however my wife won't let me. :whip:

[seireikhaan]

Perhaps he might have a point, but to deny women voting rights is extremely dangerous. First of all, women are now accustomed to being able to vote, and to deny them that is, well, not gonna go over well, to say the least. There will be A LOT of upset people, and not just women. This poll seems to imply that women do not deserve the same rights as men, and that is a fallacy. Of course they do, just as long as they contribute to society, in whatever role it might be. The beauty of democracy is that we should be allowed to choose our presidents and administration.

Additionally, by disallowing women to vote, we will end up with administrators who do not have to care for their rights. After all, if they can't vote, what else can't they do? We could run a huge list off of rights that could be denied women on the basis of this, and end up where women are nearly to the point of slaves to the husbands who forced them into marriage because the woman didn't have a choice in the matter. For all our married orgah's out there, would you like your wife to be a dis-spirited, unemotional, and depressed woman who's only task was to serve you and raise children? As for me, when I get married, I want it to be to a woman who's energetic, caring, enthusiastic, and motivated. In otherwards, I want an equal. But maybe that's just me.

[HoreTore]

Well, seeing as I'm a fan of a big government, my answer should be obvious.... :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bah. Women vote for Big Government to increase spending on education, social programs, healthcare.

When men vote for bigger government it's all wasted on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and ever bigger missiles. Anything that is capable of aggressively penetrating and dominating the Other.

[Odin]

Bah. Women vote for Big Government to increase spending on education, social programs, healthcare.

When men vote for bigger government it's all wasted on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and ever bigger missiles. Anything that is capable of aggressively penetrating and dominating the Other.

:laugh4:

that about sums it up dosent it boys?

[InsaneApache]

Bah. Women vote for Big Government to increase spending on education, shoes social programs, shoes healthcare shoes.

When men vote for bigger government it's all wasted on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and ever bigger missiles. Anything that is capable of aggressively penetrating and dominating the Other.

There fixed it for you. :sweatdrop:

Hang on, the wifes coming back!!....I'll have to go. :whip:

[Goofball]

Bah. Women vote for Big Government to increase spending on education, social programs, healthcare.

When men vote for bigger government it's all wasted on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and ever bigger missiles. Anything that is capable of aggressively penetrating and dominating the Other.

Agreed. As Robin Williams said: "We're men. If we can't :daisy: it, we'll kill it..."

[Innocentius]

Well, to be honest I don't really care.

But if I would try to really care about what's going on more than ten feet away from me, then I'd say it's downright stupid do deny women their right to vote. To even insinuate anything like it is outrageous. They are, after all, half of the world's population... Besides, they're generally a lot smarter than men (statement based mostly on personal experience but I think there are statistics on it as well).

[Geoffrey S]

If their spending in everything else is any indication...

[Pannonian]

Bah. Women vote for Big Government to increase spending on education, social programs, healthcare.

When men vote for bigger government it's all wasted on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and ever bigger missiles. Anything that is capable of aggressively penetrating and dominating the Other.
To expand on that, my impression is that women in general tend to see government as a big family to be managed, while men in general tend to see government as a big wargame to be fought over. The problem is that the big family-style government is being managed by men, who bring an entirely unsuitable mindset to matters. The more women get into politics and government the better it will be for our societies. Unfortunately, we get bored by consensus politics, so we elect strong, aggressive men who give us a good spectacle but bad government.

Ie. There is a strong argument for matriarchies.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmmm.

It seems more a matter of psychological issues than gender, though of course some might say certain genders demonstrate, generally, certain psychological nuances.

To me it seems that the idea that government should take care of people and provide answers to everything that is the problem. A lack of independence.

CR

[rory_20_uk]

We need some more Victorian values. Then people had to look after themselves, and unsurprisingly most did. We are supposed to be extremely capable animals. But once we have others to do everything for us, what's the point in trying? Big government offers masses of pointless jobs, and takes the sting out of failing to achieve anything.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

Apparently, right-wing economist John R. Lott, Jr., in his most recent book entitled Freedomnomics, has a chapter that argues:

Women's suffrage is responsible for the massive growth in the size, scope, intrusiveness and pervasiveness of government experienced by the USA since dawn of the 20th century.

He provides numerous data points, at both the state and federal levels, that shows a strong correlation between the growth of government and women being granted the right to vote. In essence, he is suggesting that the psychological and experiental qualities that women have -- particularly when single and especially after being divorced -- encourage them to vote for those candidates who propose and support expanded government. This has led, he argues, to a massive increase in the size, scope, and role of government (which, as a free-market anti-tax economist he does not like).

What say you?
traditionally women vote for the tories in the UK, which is generally considered the small gov't party.

[Xiahou]

Supposing divorced women are more likely to vote for big government, it doesn't necessarily follow that they vote for big government because they are divorced or female. Perhaps there's something else about them that makes them more likely to be divorced and vote big government. Who knows? :shrug:

Regardless, there are plenty of 'big government' men out there too and I know/know of many 'small government' women. I guess it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of what demographic is more likely to vote for a nanny-state for curiosity's sake at the very least.

Hmm, guess I should have voted option#2... oh well.

[InsaneApache]

I'm sorry to break this to you guys but trying to work out the female psyche is much like platting sawdust.

'Ok dear, I'm coming'. :sweatdrop:

It's the wife again.....:whip:

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Ok dear, I'm coming'. :sweatdrop:

It's the wife again.....:whip:Wot!? You mean you're posting here while simultanously making sexytime with your wife?


(err....and here's hoping for you that ':whip:' isn't a realistic depiction of miss Apache right now....)

[HoreTore]

(err....and here's hoping for you that ':whip:' isn't a realistic depiction of miss Apache right now....)

Whips are fun.

[Ironside]

Apparently, right-wing economist John R. Lott, Jr., in his most recent book entitled Freedomnomics, has a chapter that argues:

Women's suffrage is responsible for the massive growth in the size, scope, intrusiveness and pervasiveness of government experienced by the USA since dawn of the 20th century.

He provides numerous data points, at both the state and federal levels, that shows a strong correlation between the growth of government and women being granted the right to vote. In essence, he is suggesting that the psychological and experiental qualities that women have -- particularly when single and especially after being divorced -- encourage them to vote for those candidates who propose and support expanded government. This has led, he argues, to a massive increase in the size, scope, and role of government (which, as a free-market anti-tax economist he does not like).

What say you?

Do you have any nice datasets from John R. Lott? And some nice demographic voting patterns? I mean it's not like we're close to answer the question if females rule differently compared to men.

Anyway, what new rights has the women gained during the rule of "Mr small goverment" W. Bush?

Me would think that the idea that "if all people is equal (look all got voting rights)", then bothering about those poor dudes suddenly starts to make more sence.
But I'm not that good on US "big goverment" politics, especially the older kind before my time. The current one seems to be political pandering to lobbyists and some voter groups, while crippingly unable to get proper reforms.

I'm better on understanding the Swedish one (the ideological reasons).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Whips are fun.

Pray tell! :beam:

(Come on, it's an anonymous website - spill the beans...!)

[InsaneApache]

Pray tell! :beam:

(Come on, it's an anonymous website - spill the beans...!)

I've never sat in a bath of beans, whilst being whipped.

The wife told me to say that.

[HoreTore]

Pray tell! :beam:

(Come on, it's an anonymous website - spill the beans...!)

Join the chat, and we'll tell you all you never wanted to know... :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

We need some more Victorian values.
Do you mean like slums , gin palaces and opium dens ?
Child labour perhaps ?
Or do you just mean taking over other peoples countries and stealing their fruit ?

[Husar]

Do you mean like slums , gin palaces and opium dens ?
Child labour perhaps ?
Or do you just mean taking over other peoples countries and stealing their fruit ?
That's about what I thought.:laugh4:


Join the chat, and we'll tell you all you never wanted to know... :laugh4:
How very true...

[Papewaio]

Women's suffrage is responsible for the massive growth in the size, scope, intrusiveness and pervasiveness of government experienced by the USA since dawn of the 20th century.


I would have assumed that women's suffrage is linked to the massive growth in the size and scope of the economy. Look at WWII and the industrial input increase as women joined the workforce...

And as the government grows with tax, it too grew...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Touche, Prole, Touche. :laugh4:

and without even posting in the thread -- you're good! :cheesy:

[seireikhaan]

Touche, Prole, Touche. :laugh4:

and without even posting in the thread -- you're good! :cheesy:
Ok, now I'm curious. What exactly did she say?

[CountArach]

Rights are not something that should be taken away.

[Don Corleone]

Ok, now I'm curious. What exactly did she say?

She didn't say anything. She voted to take the vote away and keeping women barefoot and pregnant. And Lady Prole, just HGTV says "Make life yours, start at home".

[ajaxfetish]

Sounds like he should lead a revolution and start a new democratic nation in which only men are allowed to live.

Ajax