Just a quick thought before I embark on the school run.

Today, Conservative MP, Ian Duncan Smith, unveiled his report on Britain's broken society. He says that if we don not act now, in ten years, British Society will be in serious trouble.

As a result of extensive research he has identified 6 key areas that we must address, one of which is family life and the importance of marriage.

Whilst he is to be applauded for even daring to voice such a taboo subject, I believe that his is pissing in the wind. No amount of government intervention or incentives will fix this problem.

For any real change to occur will require that the population, as a whole, to have to have a massive change of mind set. Optimist say that when a society strays out of balance it self corrects. I do not feel that that will happen anytime soon and in any case I believe it is far too late.

Society is broken and there appears to be no way to fix it. It may be that we will see a total collapse and have to start again, even from a third world position, who knows.

12 months ago I would have been deeply concerned at this, but strangely, I now feel detached. Try as I might I couldn't care less. Let's hope that we do not all have this sense of apathy and feeling of inevitability.

Oddly, I feel very similar.. Its strange eh?

IDS is a fucking tool.. spouting the same shite..

Tory boy watched the cunting tories bring in the CSA and start the marraige decay and the "finance is everything" attitude to child support..

Labour have worsened it..

Marraige now has nothing to offer, it is literally "gay"..

The politicians have fucked it up..

When will men (and women) realise that theses cunts have no place in our private family lives?

And marraige should have always remained a RELIGIOUS institution, not a fucking state one!!

It should have Drex, but, unfortunately for us, government misandrists have made non-marriage a very attractive deal (for women)

That's why we have layabouts and good-for-nothing, skankified, single mothers who milk the system

They get free housing and all the cushy benefits

In return?

Why- the female vote of course !

And MP's love it

THAT is what no-one will tell you in the mainstream

and THAT is why the Men's Movement is suppressed

Well said

There was a thread here a while back where Rob was arguing the giving women the vote was a huge mistake, would you agree? I'm starting to think he's right

Well, it seems I can finally say what I think about this, and for once, I won't be kicked off a messgaboard for it.

Several years ago, I helped start an online campaign to abolish the 19th amendment to the US Constitution. In case you're not familiar offhand, that is the one that gave women the right to vote.

yeah, I know, I know...I'm female, so am I not cutting off my own right to vote? Yes, I would be, and that's fine with me as long as my husband can still vote. But I have observed over the years that society seemed to start its downward spiral AFTER women got the right to vote.

I used to say this to my Dad back in the 1980s and he thought I was nuts. BUT I WAS RIGHT. THINK ABOUT IT.

Aside from that, all the right to vote did for a lot of families was give men a second vote (where I grew up, most women voted however their husbands did.)

Most women think (and vote) emotionally. Men tend to think (and vote) using logic. This is why I have never voted for a woman either, and never would unless her name was Phyllis Schlafly.

BTW before anyone decides I'm a freak for my stance, read this article, ALSO by a female:

http://christianparty.net/nickson.htm

For that to happen, the problem would have to be identified and women would have to admit that they were wrong. Even a collapse in society would not bring that about.

Jesus Annette you're too good to be true, a woman who likes Phyllis Schlafly AND sweaty sex, are there any more where you came from?

I don't agree with everything contained on this website, but these graphs are of interest:

http://christianparty.net/19thgraphs.htm

Bachelor Tom:

I think instead of that- men need to vote selfishly- just as women do

Unfortunately, men aren't that way inclined- so there is a strong case of holding back women's vote

BUT- this is from an 'informed', MRA viewpoint

To the 'ordinary' folk, the very idea women should be denied the vote is seen as a sin of sorts

Perhaps, as Rob once noted a while back, giving only married couples the right to vote would be a good option

I can see the logic in this- as antimarriage is a key player on the feminazis game plan- so by only allowing married couples the vote would certainly dampen biased laws, i.e. domestic violence laws, that currently serve to entice women away from their ex's whilst retaining his income, kids and future earnings

If I find any, I'll send them your way!

I have noticed that on the RARE occasions when I do find women like me, they are almost always a) married, and b) over 40. What's up with that, any ideas? Even KellyMac is (I assume) married, and is over 40. We're also both Scorpios (I wonder if that factors into it too?)

Interesting graphs etc..

Society was moving that way though, and the statist approach was the way back then..

That women be denied the vote I think is perhaps a clumsy non-starter..

Electoral reform and constitutional change would be better..

Most long lasting institutions stay powerful because they choose their own successors.. They dont allow the less informed to choose them, they have any elite, who may consider the views of the rank and file, but the opinions of 1 million mediocre will never beat 100 genii..

By all means keep hold of the votes for women, but for men and women, consider very carefully if perhaps some folk should be entitled to have an extra vote due to their obviously being "more responsible" for want of a better word!

"women of a certain age..."

Reality has set in? Or you missed the worst of feminist indoctrination?

Btw did you have much response to your online campaign, must have been a lonely crusade...?

I'm not a diehard supporter of universal suffrage, I just don't know to improve the system we have. Fred suggests limiting the franchise to families, I'm not against this in principle. Drex suggests weighted votes (?), again this doesn't bother me in the abstract. The pre-modern idea was that lawmakers should be drawn from the group of people with the most at stake, typically property owners of some level. Again, this doesn't bother me, there's a certain logic to it.

Of course there is now the issue of whether national governments have enough effective power within their own boundaries when faced with eg. multinational corporations. My head hurts...

For a lot of over 40 women, maybe its a little of both. For me its perhaps because I grew up in a blue-collar working-class area where, apart from my mother, feminism really did not make much headway. I remember as a kid, hearing men excuse themselves if a curse word slipped out near a woman, and I remember seeing men tip their hats to ladies, for example.