Finley on Hillary's "No Woman is Illegal" Pronouncement

Actually...increasing the population of women relative to men might IMPROVE men's status in the U.S. By allowing only women to immigrate, the ratio of men to women would drop.

What if male sexuality ended up being in a relatively short supply as a result and thus men gained increased value? With a lower man-to-woman ratio, men would find it easier to bed down with women, etc. To borrow some of Warren Farrell's terminology, men would be less disposable.

Women will be able to break the law and enter the country illegally simply because they are women.

That will only encourage more "female only" law breaking acts by women. Hillary Clinton must not be president. She's not presidential material, she's a feminist.

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

History has shown that when there is a significant gender imbalance in societies that have a largely popular means of governance (eg, republic, direct democracy as for example many Native American tribes, etc.), the political power uniformly skews toward the sex that has the clear majority. Look for example at the American West in the 1800s. There were about 5x as many men as women past the Mississippi but is there any doubt that the decisions about what and when things happened were made largely by men? The status of men as a sex was high because they were a majority, a clear majority of the people. There are many other such examples.

Creating a situation wherein there is a clear majority of females in the political body will not raise the status of men in the country, only further diminish it by reducing the percentage of voting representation men have. Do you think men will have more say over who they can date if the M:F ratio is 1:2? Sure. But will they have say over whether they are drafted or not? No. [Not that the avg man has much now, but it will not get any better.] Same goes for such topics as the "Tax men at a higher rate" bull-crap that was recently up here on MANN; if 70% of the electorate is one kind of interest group and a law is introduced that says tax the other interest group, making up the other 30% of the electorate, at a higher rate, what do you think will happen?

It may play into the fantasies of both sexes to have fewer of their own sex counted in the population so that the pick-and-choose power lies there, but that is cold comfort when you consider the political price that is to be paid. There is a reason why certain feminists want the pop'n of males reduced to 10%. It looks a lot to me like the Hildebeast is one of them. "Strength in numbers" is no lie.

whippersnapper
"To borrow some of Warren Farrell's terminology, men would be less disposable."

interesting!!

i don't really agree on certain points, mc99.

men and women don't work the same so having a majority of men or women SHOULDN'T matter as long as they're competent and actually give a damn about the people they're elected to serve.

forcing a certain ratio of men/women will force out good people for a question of equality of outcome.

even if the majority were men, it's historically accurate to say that men have always sacrificed themselves for women. can the opposite be said?

can the opposite be said?

Hell no. This is the same gender responsible for the hate propaganda which led to klan hangings. Expecting compassion from women as a group is laughable. Once these girls get together they always throw their white sheets back on...and I am not just talking about white women because we all know black women helped the klan too.

At one point the spokesperson for the klan was a black woman.

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Mens/fathers rights can be summed up as a group of people organized to examine the way men can be seen as less disposeable in modern America!!