I sometimes wonder if it could at all be possible to limit men’s voting rights, just for a few years. Would the world become a better place? I mean women have only gained the rights to vote fairly recently so it would be no big deal if, even for the sake of some historical redress, men would be barred from voting. Perhaps just for five years or so.
What is little known is that it was New Zealand that gave women the right to vote (1893) first in the world, soon followed by all Australian states, excluding Victoria. Finland was first of the block in Europe but at that time was still a Grand duchy of the Russian Empire. Finland is outstanding in that women’s suffrage gained in 1906 also immediately allowed women to stand for elections. This did not happen in New Zealand and Australia till much later. Women to stand for elections in New Zealand did not happen till 1919 for the lower chamber and 1941 for upper chamber. In Australia it also took many years for women to be voted into parliament. (1921 Edit Cowan.) On a federal level it wasn’t till 1962 that aboriginal people were even allowed to vote! It was mainly the temperance movement that gave women their voting rights in NZ and Australia which resulted the US in following suit soon after. (Disclaimer; find out your own facts on this.)
The possibility of Abbott becoming a PM would certainly not happen if men were barred from voting. Perhaps Julia would still be here. I am not sure K.Rudd would be around either. Some of you might well think that events would not be any better or much different even without men and their penile driven peculiarities. They often recall the combatetive and warlike natures of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Yes, quite so but they only got there by imitating the worst of their male counterparts. Joan of Arc or Mother Theresa would never have been Prime Ministers or heads of state with the inclusion of males in the voting world.
When our possible future PM Tony Abbott came out with his pearl of ‘suppositories of Wisdom’, declaration, women voters would have made him a court jester instead, never a PM. They are just too caring to allow a man with such a curious state of mind being wasted on being a mere PM.
The more I think of barring men from voting the more it starts to appeal. It is almost daily when I read about road rage. Yet, all road rage is indulged in by men. I have yet to hear a case of female road rage. Are the troubles in the world an expression of male road rage, a colliding of cultures or differences being just the vehicle for unlimited killings and brutal murder, total mayhem and illogical demented behavior with male minds running amok, thrusting rockets and bullets mercilessly into each other?
Look at the treatment of refugees in Australia. The ‘suppository wisdom’ party now rallying support from even more inhumane treatment by promising the voters that the thirty thousand refugees already in Australia will never gain residency here. What utter contempt for others, what total madness, but… also note that it is mainly the women who front up with compassion and humane treatment, often with genuine tears. They are not at the forefront of retribution and brutality against refugees. What bastardy for the possible future Prime Minister Abbott (Mr Suppository) to try and dive even lower than his party’s Liberal predecessors. Where are the tear stained faces of the men, with hearts of stone with fossilized emotional reactions to anything needing compassion and understanding.
What next? Will the mainly male driven parties keep responding with ever increasing tougher measures; line them up, shoot them, or send them to concentration camps? They’re almost doing that now.
So, ban men for a while from voting. Give it a go.
We have nothing to lose.
Suffer the men. Make that ten years.