/Firstly, I believe the woman's-right-to-vote movement in the early 20th century was a way of officially dividing husband and wife into two units when they ought to be One. Taxing them separately added to this./
Dude, women won the right to vote in the 20th century, but the suffrage movement had much earlier roots. Besides, a husband and wife are two people, aren't they? Two separate human beings. And if they work separately, of course they're going to be both taxed.
/Why do women maintain so much political power these days?/
I don't know, John, why do men maintain so much political power these days, more so than women, even now?
/Because men HEARKEN unto them, just as in Eden./
Oh, give me a break. The story went like this. The devil (a MALE entity, by the way) possessed a snake and suggested to Eve that she ought to take an apple from the Tree of Knowledge and eat it. At first, Eve argued with him, because she wasn't entirely a submissive doormat dependent on the guidance of men. The devil finally convinced her and she ate it. Later on, Adam found her. She offered him a piece and HE TOOK IT. That's it. No argument, no protest, no reminder of how God told them not to eat it, NOTHING. He just took it. So, don't go on this whole tirade about how the tale proves that all women are dangerous temptresses. Because if that's the case, then the tale should prove that all men are weak-willed simpletons with short-term memory loss.
/The world has always been, and will be to the very end, a patriarchy./
I pray that that statement will not be true. I pray that the world will eventually become neither a patriarchy nor a matriarchy, but a partnership of the sexes. And by the way, John, the world has not always been a patriarchy, at least not in certain societies. In certain Native American tribes, women held power, as they did in Celtic tribes and certain African tribes. So, no, your dream of an everlasting patriarchy is a false and dangerous one.
/Women have power because men in power give it to them for a purpose:/
Oh, this is rich. This is so rich, women today only have power because men had the benevolence to just give it to them. Like women didn't have to fight, struggle, and endure humiliation and ridicule to get it.
/to socialize our societies/
How is that a bad thing?
/and steal the fruits of our labor./
What? Why would men want women to "steal the fruits of their labor?" It doesn't make sense.
/Stealing fathers and mothers away from their children in the process./
Let me guess: the argument that allowing women to work outside the home takes them away from their children. Have you ever heard of "stay-at-home dads?" Or parents that try to coordinate their schedules so that everything fits? Or part-time jobs? Nannies, daycare? Anything?
/If we men closed our ears to their (ever swaying) opinions, women would just step down and the natural order would ensue./
As I said before, women have been trying to get equal rights for years. Trying to get rights while men DID close their ears. Ignoring us will only make us angrier and more determined to fight for equal rights, you cretin. And "natural order?" Let me guess, when the husband works, the wife stays home, barefoot and pregnant, and is at the beck and call of her husband's sexual whims? I wonder how this moron would react when he finds out that most men actually don't want that in this day and age?
/When I debate a woman I listen to her every word but still DISREGARD about 90 percent of what she says as pure nonsense./
You must be so wonderful at debate. /sarcasm/ Well, this must be just a crazy coincidence, John, because I'm listening to your every word, but I still disregard 100 percent of what you say as pure nonsense.
/Women try to win debates through eloquence and a ceaseless flow of words./
He can't be serious. He really can't be serious. Okay, assuming that he is, how do you think many debates are won, you ignorant fool? Do you ever listen to the news? Do you miss the many articles that speak about Obama's eloquence, some speaking of it as a strength, others speaking of it as a weakness? What about the many male politicians who have gained power, who were very eloquent? Oh, no, John would prefer politicians and debaters to have the same level of eloquence and flow as George W. Bush.
/An compliment on their looks or apparel will disarm a woman immediately./
Which explains why some women turn down men who serenade them with lame and cheesy compliments or pick-up lines. Or the men who think that a compliment will automatically negate the insulting remark that they made to that women five seconds ago.
/That's not the kind of "feathers in the wind" that I want as leaders for my country./
Misogynistic idiots like you are not the kind of morons that I want as leaders for my country. "Feathers in the wind?" Oh, yes, let us examine the steadfast, non-fickle, non-petulant male leaders who existed in history and made decisions for purely selfless reasons:
1. "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." - President George W. Bush on the threat that Saddam Hussein allegedly posed to the U.S.
2. King John, who annulled his marriage to Isabel of Gloucester, because her paternal grandfather was the illegitimate son of Henry I of England, and kidnapped
Isabella of Angoulême, who was twenty years his junior, from her fiancé to marry her.
3. Henry VIII and his wives. Enough said.
4. Nero, who infamously "fiddled while Rome burned." I don't think he was the "feather in the wind" that anybody needed either.
5. Caligula. Enough said.
And there have been many more. Face it, anybody can be a bad ruler, male or female. So shut up with your patronizing, misogynistic nonsense.