Was women's suffrage a mistake?

[Siberitania]

also this
pls no warn for garish posting, it's just that it's important and nobody noticed the first time.

This is what comes of posting attempts at edginess without thinking through the consequences of them.

Yeah ik
I should probably kms but hey.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

If by large group, you mean a tiny, tiny percentage.

There is a considerable amount of people who are white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy and proud of their qualities to begin with. Why would some people not espouse these ideas?

In 2010, the non-Hispanic White population of the US was 63.7%. There's roughly a 1:1 ratio of males to females between 18 and 64, so this means that the non-Hispanic White Male population of the US is roughly 31.85%, rounded up to 32%. 3.8% of the population is LGBT by 2012 statistics, so let's apply and scale appropriately.

10.1% of non-Hispanic whites live in poverty, so we subtract that much.

So, when the math is done, the percentage of people you'd be supportive with a white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy regime is roughly 20.8% of the total population.

BUT- we're not done. The society you are imagining is likely one focused around Protestantism, the classic 50's America. I'm adding this portion in afterwards because you did not explicitly state this. Consider this portion null and void if you do not have the Protestant favoritism of the 50's,

"White" in the US also applies to those of MENA ancestry, Middle-East and North-African, which includes Muslims and Jews primarily. With these two groups subtracted, we come to an ultimate conclusion of 59,031,200 people. That's roughly 18.5% of the population you'd be serving with a white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy, Christian regime. You would be excluding and denying 81.5% of the population of the US.

[Cymrea]

"Was women's suffrage a mistake?"

Short answer: No
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This.^^

[Italios]

You might as well have. You said it is the same reasoning. Your views are selfish, unenlightened, limited, and to be blunt, wrong. You appear to be stating that around half the population deserves no say in their governance, their future, or anything else. I think it's entirely reasonable that folks perusing this still should glance at your posts, and dismiss them as the utter codswallop they are. Nothing you have posted is any rational reason for denying women a fair say in how our world is operated.

I guess I'm done with this for today. It's not like I always strive for what I claim to support. I'm usually a decent, rational, egalitarian person.

"Egalitarian" and "rational" weren't quite the feel I was getting from this thread.

I mean, you couldn't have looked at the counter-arguments of the OP you composed explaining why women's suffrage is a good thing before posting what would obviously turn into a total shitstorm over equal rights?

Good on you for seeing the flaw in this stance though.

[Arkiasis]

Topic: "Was women's suffrage a mistake?"

Poll: "Should women be allowed to vote?"

Ffs, try and keep things consistent.

[Western-Ukraine]

There is a considerable amount of people who are white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy and proud of their qualities to begin with. Why would some people not espouse these ideas?

In 2010, the non-Hispanic White population of the US was 63.7%. There's roughly a 1:1 ratio of males to females between 18 and 64, so this means that the non-Hispanic White Male population of the US is roughly 31.85%, rounded up to 32%. 3.8% of the population is LGBT by 2012 statistics, so let's apply and scale appropriately.

10.1% of non-Hispanic whites live in poverty, so we subtract that much.

So, when the math is done, the percentage of people you'd be supportive with a white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy regime is roughly 20.8% of the total population.

BUT- we're not done. The society you are imagining is likely one focused around Protestantism, the classic 50's America. I'm adding this portion in afterwards because you did not explicitly state this. Consider this portion null and void if you do not have the Protestant favoritism of the 50's,

"White" in the US also applies to those of MENA ancestry, Middle-East and North-African, which includes Muslims and Jews primarily. With these two groups subtracted, we come to an ultimate conclusion of 59,031,200 people. That's roughly 18.5% of the population you'd be serving with a white, heterosexual, educated or wealthy, Christian regime. You would be excluding and denying 81.5% of the population of the US.

Hardly 19% of the American population would support my views. I'm not a proponent of Christianity either.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

This is what comes of posting attempts at edginess without thinking through the consequences of them.

Yeah ik
I should probably kms but hey.

Oh please, dispense with the childish 'woe is me' responses. Go to the Moderation thread where this was already reported, and state your reasonings. They won't honor a 'please shut it down', but it might save you from some unwelcome attention. Possibly. I've no idea anymore. Once a mod wakes up and has the time, I wouldn't doubt that this will end up awash in redtext at the rate its gone in some areas. *shrugs* C'est la vie - le merde.

[Great Feng]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

Topic: "Was women's suffrage a mistake?"

Poll: "Should women be allowed to vote?"

Ffs, try and keep things consistent.

Women's suffrage is the ability for women to vote. If it was a "mistake", people would vote "No". That seems like a properly set-up poll.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

why is this?

During the Late Paleolithic, human societies began to develop a more structured society that, by the Mesolithic, reached what we could definitively call the earliest stages of a chiefdom. In this society, men and women were generally considered roughly equal, with women generally taking the roles of construction and gathering, whereas the men spent much of their time hunting. These were common, but not rigid or defined, roles for the two groups, as huntresses were known to exist and men took up roles in the domestic sphere. A good example of how stone age societies defeat completely rigid roles would be the increasingly-common-knowledge Two Spirit custom.

As the Mesolithic transferred to the Neolithic, supplies began to increase as populations gathered in concentrated areas. With the advent of farming, populations no longer had the necessity to be itinerant, instead creating fertile centers of population that eventually became cities. In these early communities, women typically tended the farms while the men continued to hunt. In these tribal societies, a great deal of influence was rested on the prestige of individuals. This can be seen today in the Pacific with the notion of the "Big Man", who acts as a provider, diplomat, and leader for the people, often cooperating with the chief. This position was, and still is, dependent on the ability to provide for the village and administrate over it, and the Big Man can be replaced if he does not do satisfactory work.

One way to keep Big Man status, or to attain it, was to have very high prestige. As mentioned before, the ability of Big Man to provide for the village was a key component in his status, and so when supplies at home were low, he was tasked with finding new ones. Often, this led to tribal raids and warfare, and created an early version of the "glorious" vision of war that would inhabit the world for millennia to come. This "glory" vision developed due to the acquisition of resources from enemies giving prestige while simultaneously reducing competition. This would later become the warrior culture known by much of the world. Since men were most often the hunters, they were also often the warriors, and typically employed hunting tactics in warfare, giving us the infamous practice of guerrilla warfare in its earliest form.

Big Man and hereditary leadership would eventually merge into one and the same to become kingship. Leaders were expected to provide for their people, and failure to do so would typically result in a revolution. Early Mesopotamian states, for instance, divvied up the grain produced by the state and gave it out proportionally to all of its inhabitants, depending on what work they did and what role they played in society. The modern concept of statehood would develop after this, and would not be exclusive to men with the existence of very powerful and notable historical figures like Puabi, Semiramis, Enheduanna, and Hatshepsut. Truly agnatic rulership did not hold prevalence until Alexander the Great.

Alexander's empire was based in Macedon, a remnant of the Greek Dark Age whereas the rest of Greece advanced to become Hellenistic. The culture of Macedon was largely based around the Dark Ages Greek culture, which is that told of by Homer in his epics. It is fairly militaristic in all the things it does, and thus is very male-oriented. Although, if Homer is to be believed, women could still hold large amounts of power, just not as sovereign rulers. Another instance of agnatic leadership in this period is Athens, among the only Greek states to be fully agnatic. Sparta, by contrast, gave women education, inheritance rights, and even expected them to hunt their own dinner. Spartan women include Arachidamia, who led the Spartans in battle again Pyrrhus, Cynisca and Euryleonis, who both won the Olympics, and the patruchoi, who were wealthy women who inherited land from their fathers.

The rise of the Roman Republic saw the end to female leadership in many areas, as Rome was a militaristic and, therefore, male-oriented society. Furthermore, it was a Republic, and like the Athenian Democracy, there was little, if any, representation for women across its span. Even when Rome became an empire, there was a great disparity in governmental power. It would not be until the Byzantines that Roman women would become prominent and even leaders, with such figures as Princess Anna (author of the Alexiad), Empress Irene, or Empress Theodora. The Germanic kingdoms which came to dominate the west were militaristic, and you know the rest. Even still, these Germanic societies allowed women to hold great freedom: regulating their own divorces, becoming warriors or generals, property rights, and so on. The other Northern "barbarians" the Romans often fought with, the Celts, have a single figure I'd like to point to in demonstration: Boudicca. The Germanic and Celtic views of women, despite being militaristic societies, can be attributed to their older tribal structure (see earlier paragraphs) instead of a proper state structure.

Asia had women too. Shajar al-Durr represents an Islamic example. The Berbers have various chieftainesses I shall not diverge into, as most of them are preislamic. India has had a few female leaders as well. The culture of India originally dictated that men and women held high equality, although over time this depleted. By the Middle Ages, the status of women was significantly less than it had been previously, giving us a predecessor to the treatment of women in rural India in the modern day. Preislamic Bedouin also had a high respect for women, with chieftesses like Mavia, Zenobia, and the Queen of Sheba. One is a Bedouin, one is Canaanite, and the last is South Arabian. There are more examples, like Elyssa/Dido of Tyre, as well as the Mesopotamians I listed above, but my point has been made for this region. India's Rudrama Devi and Didda are enough said. China, typically considered one of the worst cultures in the ancient world for women thanks almost entirely to Confucius, has Wu Zetian, and thus even China is not immune to women holding power. Japan has had a few empresses, as well as a few bushi onna.

There are a few examples from Native America as well. I shall not make this long, as what is discussed prior in the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic discussion all apply and, thus, further discussion would be redundant. One example is the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois. Traditionally, men could not declare war without their wives' consent. Inheritance, marriage, and family were all generally passed through the female line, and was thus matrilineal. Elder councils of women can be seen across the entire US, with Plains cultures especially having such figures. The Wichita were known to have female leadership as well. Several Mesoamerican states (besides the militaristic Mexica, the founders of the Aztec empire) were likewise known to have had female leaders.

Modern women are just as capable. You cite a single unreliable study which is hardly a case for half of the world's population, as well as one which states that women are simply hindered by hormones and menstruation. This is a cultural phenomenon largely specific to the West, suspiciously missing in many other cultures. The argument for exclusion of women from the military hinged around this, as well as men's reaction to them, as well. A simple look at, say, Israel's armed forces since its inception, or the numerous fighting women of Russia across the 20th century, or even the ancient Scythian integrated armies would clearly demonstrate that this is a failing of Western culture more than it is biology and "natural" tendency.

All across the world, on all inhabited continents, there have been examples of female leadership. There is a clear male preference bias in leadership which stems from the concepts of prestige, warriorhood, generalship, and the idea of a leader being a supplier more than anything else. Female leadership is known and documented for thousands of years, almost since the beginning of recorded history. You can shout and whine that women are "More emotional" and "Less rational" than men, but that'll never be an absolute and, indeed, is a logical fallacy to say that men do not undergo the same. A very brief look at American politics is a very clear indicator of how men can be just as irrational, while examples of female leaders like Semiramis, Dido, and Caterina Sforza can all demonstrate how women can be just as capable as men.


Your argument hinges on a fallacy. Do some actual research next time.

[Freefall11111]

Topic: "Was women's suffrage a mistake?"

Poll: "Should women be allowed to vote?"

Ffs, try and keep things consistent.

Women's suffrage is the ability for women to vote. If it was a "mistake", people would vote "No". That seems like a properly set-up poll.

I think you should try reading the poll's title and compare it to the thread's title.

[Western-Ukraine]

I guess I'm done with this for today. It's not like I always strive for what I claim to support. I'm usually a decent, rational, egalitarian person.

"Egalitarian" and "rational" weren't quite the feel I was getting from this thread.

I mean, you couldn't have looked at the counter-arguments of the OP you composed explaining why women's suffrage is a good thing before posting what would obviously turn into a total shitstorm over equal rights?

Good on you for seeing the flaw in this stance though.

The OP was completely irrelevant to my argument. I was solely arguing for my beliefs on the basis of selfishness.

[Nephelon]

Not even going to dignify the question itself with an answer now that I've voted... but why are there 19 people who voted no?

Why?

NS, what the hell.

I thought you were slightly more mature than that.

[Mefpan]

Topic: "Was women's suffrage a mistake?"

Poll: "Should women be allowed to vote?"

Ffs, try and keep things consistent.

Women's suffrage is the ability for women to vote. If it was a "mistake", people would vote "No". That seems like a properly set-up poll.

The problem is that the questions are about the same thing, but in order to express the same opinion you have to answer the question differently.

That's a bit of a problem, especially when people are quick shots with their poll votes and go "hold on a minute, that question isn't phrased the way I was sure it'd be".

[Italios]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

p
Please look through this thread at the long, well-worded posts overthrowing his entire argument and you should be happy. Someone just brought out statistics on why letting the vote go entirely to rich, white men would not benefit anyone and explained their entire train or thought. Let's not forgot that you've contributed nothing but complain that we've done nothing.

The argument, upon reading it, is automatically dismissed at illogical, greatly exaggerated and misogynistic.... Because it is.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

Women's suffrage is the ability for women to vote. If it was a "mistake", people would vote "No". That seems like a properly set-up poll.

I think you should try reading the poll's title and compare it to the thread's title.

They are the same idea, just phrased differently. While yes, the poll and thread title do not match, it presents roughly the same question.

[Socialist Nordia]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

The proposal was addressed. There are many prominent female leaders who have smashed the OP's generations, and someone pointed out a quote from the study disproving the OP's point. People did have reasonable arguments, and they worked so well that the OP changed their mind. Read the damned thread.

[Great Feng]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

During the Late Paleolithic, human societies began to develop a more structured society that, by the Mesolithic, reached what we could definitively call the earliest stages of a chiefdom. In this society, men and women were generally considered roughly equal, with women generally taking the roles of construction and gathering, whereas the men spent much of their time hunting. These were common, but not rigid or defined, roles for the two groups, as huntresses were known to exist and men took up roles in the domestic sphere. A good example of how stone age societies defeat completely rigid roles would be the increasingly-common-knowledge Two Spirit custom.

As the Mesolithic transferred to the Neolithic, supplies began to increase as populations gathered in concentrated areas. With the advent of farming, populations no longer had the necessity to be itinerant, instead creating fertile centers of population that eventually became cities. In these early communities, women typically tended the farms while the men continued to hunt. In these tribal societies, a great deal of influence was rested on the prestige of individuals. This can be seen today in the Pacific with the notion of the "Big Man", who acts as a provider, diplomat, and leader for the people, often cooperating with the chief. This position was, and still is, dependent on the ability to provide for the village and administrate over it, and the Big Man can be replaced if he does not do satisfactory work.

One way to keep Big Man status, or to attain it, was to have very high prestige. As mentioned before, the ability of Big Man to provide for the village was a key component in his status, and so when supplies at home were low, he was tasked with finding new ones. Often, this led to tribal raids and warfare, and created an early version of the "glorious" vision of war that would inhabit the world for millennia to come. This "glory" vision developed due to the acquisition of resources from enemies giving prestige while simultaneously reducing competition. This would later become the warrior culture known by much of the world. Since men were most often the hunters, they were also often the warriors, and typically employed hunting tactics in warfare, giving us the infamous practice of guerrilla warfare in its earliest form.

Big Man and hereditary leadership would eventually merge into one and the same to become kingship. Leaders were expected to provide for their people, and failure to do so would typically result in a revolution. Early Mesopotamian states, for instance, divvied up the grain produced by the state and gave it out proportionally to all of its inhabitants, depending on what work they did and what role they played in society. The modern concept of statehood would develop after this, and would not be exclusive to men with the existence of very powerful and notable historical figures like Puabi, Semiramis, Enheduanna, and Hatshepsut. Truly agnatic rulership did not hold prevalence until Alexander the Great.

Alexander's empire was based in Macedon, a remnant of the Greek Dark Age whereas the rest of Greece advanced to become Hellenistic. The culture of Macedon was largely based around the Dark Ages Greek culture, which is that told of by Homer in his epics. It is fairly militaristic in all the things it does, and thus is very male-oriented. Although, if Homer is to be believed, women could still hold large amounts of power, just not as sovereign rulers. Another instance of agnatic leadership in this period is Athens, among the only Greek states to be fully agnatic. Sparta, by contrast, gave women education, inheritance rights, and even expected them to hunt their own dinner. Spartan women include Arachidamia, who led the Spartans in battle again Pyrrhus, Cynisca and Euryleonis, who both won the Olympics, and the patruchoi, who were wealthy women who inherited land from their fathers.

The rise of the Roman Republic saw the end to female leadership in many areas, as Rome was a militaristic and, therefore, male-oriented society. Furthermore, it was a Republic, and like the Athenian Democracy, there was little, if any, representation for women across its span. Even when Rome became an empire, there was a great disparity in governmental power. It would not be until the Byzantines that Roman women would become prominent and even leaders, with such figures as Princess Anna (author of the Alexiad), Empress Irene, or Empress Theodora. The Germanic kingdoms which came to dominate the west were militaristic, and you know the rest. Even still, these Germanic societies allowed women to hold great freedom: regulating their own divorces, becoming warriors or generals, property rights, and so on. The other Northern "barbarians" the Romans often fought with, the Celts, have a single figure I'd like to point to in demonstration: Boudicca. The Germanic and Celtic views of women, despite being militaristic societies, can be attributed to their older tribal structure (see earlier paragraphs) instead of a proper state structure.

Asia had women too. Shajar al-Durr represents an Islamic example. The Berbers have various chieftainesses I shall not diverge into, as most of them are preislamic. India has had a few female leaders as well. The culture of India originally dictated that men and women held high equality, although over time this depleted. By the Middle Ages, the status of women was significantly less than it had been previously, giving us a predecessor to the treatment of women in rural India in the modern day. Preislamic Bedouin also had a high respect for women, with chieftesses like Mavia, Zenobia, and the Queen of Sheba. One is a Bedouin, one is Canaanite, and the last is South Arabian. There are more examples, like Elyssa/Dido of Tyre, as well as the Mesopotamians I listed above, but my point has been made for this region. India's Rudrama Devi and Didda are enough said. China, typically considered one of the worst cultures in the ancient world for women thanks almost entirely to Confucius, has Wu Zetian, and thus even China is not immune to women holding power. Japan has had a few empresses, as well as a few bushi onna.

There are a few examples from Native America as well. I shall not make this long, as what is discussed prior in the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic discussion all apply and, thus, further discussion would be redundant. One example is the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois. Traditionally, men could not declare war without their wives' consent. Inheritance, marriage, and family were all generally passed through the female line, and was thus matrilineal. Elder councils of women can be seen across the entire US, with Plains cultures especially having such figures. The Wichita were known to have female leadership as well. Several Mesoamerican states (besides the militaristic Mexica, the founders of the Aztec empire) were likewise known to have had female leaders.

Modern women are just as capable. You cite a single unreliable study which is hardly a case for half of the world's population, as well as one which states that women are simply hindered by hormones and menstruation. This is a cultural phenomenon largely specific to the West, suspiciously missing in many other cultures. The argument for exclusion of women from the military hinged around this, as well as men's reaction to them, as well. A simple look at, say, Israel's armed forces since its inception, or the numerous fighting women of Russia across the 20th century, or even the ancient Scythian integrated armies would clearly demonstrate that this is a failing of Western culture more than it is biology and "natural" tendency.

All across the world, on all inhabited continents, there have been examples of female leadership. There is a clear male preference bias in leadership which stems from the concepts of prestige, warriorhood, generalship, and the idea of a leader being a supplier more than anything else. Female leadership is known and documented for thousands of years, almost since the beginning of recorded history. You can shout and whine that women are "More emotional" and "Less rational" than men, but that'll never be an absolute and, indeed, is a logical fallacy to say that men do not undergo the same. A very brief look at American politics is a very clear indicator of how men can be just as irrational, while examples of female leaders like Semiramis, Dido, and Caterina Sforza can all demonstrate how women can be just as capable as men.


Your argument hinges on a fallacy. Do some actual research next time.

Thank you. You I guess are one of the few who addressed the argument for it instead of the idea so here have a cookie.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

Thank you. You I guess are one of the few who addressed the argument for it instead of the idea so here have a cookie.

Yay!

[Western-Ukraine]

I'm rather sad to see that no one is arguing for the other side of this topic anymore. Someone should play the Devil's Advocate for a change.

[Great Feng]

guys this OP made a detailed well made debate for this stance and yoy guys are being just....ridiculous.
I strongly disagree with the OP but he has made a good argument and that you gyys are just blowing it off just because of the topic dusgusts me.
I strongly disagree with the OP's thoery/proposal but you guys are blasting him for the very idea of this, instead of the argument for it. As such you guys are acting disgusting.
Is the proposal right?
Fuck no !
I am strongly opposed to it. But you guys are dismissing it based on the proposal itself instead of the argument for it which I strongly disagree with.

The proposal was addressed. There are many prominent female leaders who have smashed the OP's generations, and someone pointed out a quote from the study disproving the OP's point. People did have reasonable arguments, and they worked so well that the OP changed their mind. Read the damned thread.

I read the first page. That's what got me annoyed.

[Italios]

"Egalitarian" and "rational" weren't quite the feel I was getting from this thread.

I mean, you couldn't have looked at the counter-arguments of the OP you composed explaining why women's suffrage is a good thing before posting what would obviously turn into a total shitstorm over equal rights?

Good on you for seeing the flaw in this stance though.

The OP was completely irrelevant to my argument. I was solely arguing for my beliefs on the basis of selfishness.

So what was your actual argument? As it happens, most OPs outline their argument in the opening post and let people answer to that opening post.

But again - you've fixed your ideas. I think most are simply biding their time for someone else who is against women's suffrage to make an appearance so they can pounce.

[Siberitania]

I actually enjoyed reading Ik's argument tbh.
It was really well written.

[Italios]

Thank you. You I guess are one of the few who addressed the argument for it instead of the idea so here have a cookie.

Attacking the argument and idea.... Is basically the same thing. Most people automatically wrote "no" because the argument wasn't a good one in itself.

[Socialist Nordia]

The proposal was addressed. There are many prominent female leaders who have smashed the OP's generations, and someone pointed out a quote from the study disproving the OP's point. People did have reasonable arguments, and they worked so well that the OP changed their mind. Read the damned thread.

I read the first page. That's what got me annoyed.

First page is always filled with initial reactions. Many valid arguments were presented later on.