Current Events > America, the democracy where women are definitely allowed to vote

(+) Yeah! (+)

Listen to all the anecdotes in the replies here:
https://twitter.com/andizeisler/status/1224428177641984001

Essentially a lot of husbands not letting their wives vote, or not letting them talk to campaigners. Of course CE is going to argue that anecdotal evidence means nothing. I'd argue that if this is such a widespread phenomenon that so many have their own anecdotes about it, it's too common.

---

Keyboard feminists put lots of weight into their weak points.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Keyboard feminists put lots of weight into their weak points.

Didn't I inb4 this

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Keyboard feminists put lots of weight into their weak points.

What makes the point weak? Please use science, data, research, and logic in your answer. Okay, thanks.

---

A really cool idea is to look up voting data so you know women vote at a higher rate than men before making a topic like this.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

A really cool idea is to look up voting data so you know women vote at a higher rate than men before making a topic like this.

So women are definitely allowed to vote, I think this topic is a success good job everyone

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

A really cool idea is to look up voting data so you know women vote at a higher rate than men before making a topic like this.

Would that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

A really cool idea is to look up voting data so you know women vote at a higher rate than men before making a topic like this.

Air tight argument assuming all women are with men because if they're not then the two statements don't contradict.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Would that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?

yeah

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

What makes the point weak? Please use science, data, research, and logic in your answer. Okay, thanks.

The burden of proof is on the person trying to make a claim.

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

The burden of proof is on the person trying to make a claim.

Yes, and TC showed a form of witness in phone banking. Then someone said it was weak. The burden is on them to show it.

---

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/voter-intimidation-republicans-democrats-midterm-elections

Interesting to see this reported on years back

Broseph_Stalin posted...

yeah

Well I'm not entirely sure you know what I'm saying, and if you do I'm not entirely sure you master logic enough to argue against it

---

If true, that's fucked up and no amount of women voting to "make up for it" makes this "ok"

This is not what is going on. It is more like,

Me: "Hey honey they want to talk to you."

Wife: "ABOUT WHAT, i am busy!"

Me: "Um politics?"

Wife: "What why are you EVEN ASKING ME!!!" * beats me with book she is reading*.

The following year they call.

Me: "She doesn't want to talk to you."

Agent: Them trying to convince me to let her talk.

Me: "No bye"

^^ohhh lol

BylethEisner posted...

This is not what is going on. It is more like,

Me: "Hey honey they want to talk to you."

Wife: "ABOUT WHAT, i am busy!"

Me: "Um politics?"

Wife: "What why are you EVEN ASKING ME!!!" * beats me with book she is reading*.

The following year they call.

Me: "She doesn't want to talk to you."

Agent: Them trying to convince me to let her talk.

Me: "No bye"

Lmao

---

To be clear:

If our hypothesis is "some married women/women with partners are kept from voting in the primaries", the only voting data that would falsify that claim is data that shows all women with partners voted in the primaries.

...and that still wouldn't falsify our next hypothesis, that some women are forced by their partners to vote for a candidate they don't actually support, in the primaries.

This is a phenomenon that is obviously very difficult to measure. It would require very intrusive measures, and those kinds of measures might just as well have a big influence on the results. So frankly, smugly concluding that "you can just look at voter data to falsify this" is at best stupid, and at worst dishonest. Which is it, Broseph?

EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that even if women in the end would manage to vote for their preferred candidate, these anecdotes still highlight another issue - that there is a culture (seemingly widespread, but again, we don't know the severity) among some men where they feel it's OK to try and control their wives' vote.

---

o.0
---

Lol for those who care, last presidential election I voted Hillary. My wife and her parents both sides, all voted Trump and threw a party celerbrating him winning. Then proceeded to berate me about all the horrible evil of "dem liberals" ruining USA and how they fought back and glad people like me didn't win. Soo while I did not influence her vote, her parents did. When I asked about it later, she said she didn't like Trump but her mom and real dad were so excited about it (she doesn't care about her step parents).

We live in Texas and have been married 14 years now.

I'm not surprised.

---

I wasn't aware the government could stop people from being assholes.

---

lightwarrior78 posted...

I wasn't aware the government could stop people from being assholes.

No one said it could

---

yeah its a very common phenomenon

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

A really cool idea is to look up voting data so you know women vote at a higher rate than men before making a topic like this.

This.

---

darkjedilink posted...

This.

scar the 1 posted...

To be clear:

If our hypothesis is "some married women/women with partners are kept from voting in the primaries", the only voting data that would falsify that claim is data that shows all women with partners voted in the primaries.

...and that still wouldn't falsify our next hypothesis, that some women are forced by their partners to vote for a candidate they don't actually support, in the primaries.

This is a phenomenon that is obviously very difficult to measure. It would require very intrusive measures, and those kinds of measures might just as well have a big influence on the results. So frankly, smugly concluding that "you can just look at voter data to falsify this" is at best stupid, and at worst dishonest. Which is it, Broseph?

EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that even if women in the end would manage to vote for their preferred candidate, these anecdotes still highlight another issue - that there is a culture (seemingly widespread, but again, we don't know the severity) among some men where they feel it's OK to try and control their wives' vote.

---

Women are being forced by their partners not to vote?

This reminds me of all those times my spouse forced me not to have sex with other women.

---

scar the 1 posted...

To be clear:

If our hypothesis is "some married women/women with partners are kept from voting in the primaries", the only voting data that would falsify that claim is data that shows all women with partners voted in the primaries.

...and that still wouldn't falsify our next hypothesis, that some women are forced by their partners to vote for a candidate they don't actually support, in the primaries.

This is a phenomenon that is obviously very difficult to measure. It would require very intrusive measures, and those kinds of measures might just as well have a big influence on the results. So frankly, smugly concluding that "you can just look at voter data to falsify this" is at best stupid, and at worst dishonest. Which is it, Broseph?

EDIT: Oh and let's not forget that even if women in the end would manage to vote for their preferred candidate, these anecdotes still highlight another issue - that there is a culture (seemingly widespread, but again, we don't know the severity) among some men where they feel it's OK to try and control their wives' vote.

Your entire premise is that women can't vote in America. Stop trying to weasel out of it because literally everyone called you on your super-woke bullshit.

---

Yall really need to stop giving bimbo babble power.

Breaking news, there are couples where one or both partners are horrible people!

I've heard this before. I can't say I've ever heard about it in person, but I'd be interested in seeing if any studies have looked into this.

---

darkjedilink posted...

Your entire premise is that women can't vote in America. Stop trying to weasel out of it because literally everyone called you on your super-woke bullshit.

What? No, my premise is that people who worked with campaigning are saying that they've encountered instances where men attempt to exert power over their partner's votes. Did you read the replies to the tweet I linked?

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

I've heard this before. I can't say I've ever heard about it in person, but I'd be interested in seeing if any studies have looked into this.

the literature is thin on this kind of direct control of their political engagement, but there is some research

https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/conferences/bhps/2003/docs/pdf/papers/kan.pdf

Our findings show that economic dependency has different implications for women and men. It is found that women who are economic providers are more likely to diverge from their partners political values over time than other women. On the other hand, the results indicate that economically dependent men ignore their partners political values to a significantly greater extent than those who are the breadwinners and those who earn more or less the equal amount of income compared with their spousal partners. Moreover, the male partners do not adjust their political attitudes significantly according to the female partners lifestyle orientations or level of economic dependency over time. These findings suggest that the bargaining in political choices between husband and wife is not gender neutral. In the deviant cases where the female partner has considerable more economic resources than the male partner, the male partner tends to restore his masculine identity in political choices by ignoring the female partners preference, and the female partner is likely to bargain for her preference actively rather than do gender by deferring to the male partners values. Furthermore, our findings show that women with work-centred values are more likely to diverge from their partners political attitudes over time than other women, although at the aggregate level, the female partners lifestyle preference has no significant effect on the weights that the couple accord to each others political values. We conclude that the effect of the female partners lifestyle orientation operates primarily at influencing her own values over time and therefore has no direct significant effects on her own and her partners voting choices once the two parties political values are given. Finally, contrary to what is assumed in the conventional model of political behaviour, the findings point out that womens political values have a significant effect on their own and their spousal partners political choices and attitudes. In sum, this paper shows that husbands and wives do influence each others political attitudes and choices, and the process of influence depends to a significant extent on their political values, relative levels of economic resource and the female partners lifestyle orientations.

---

Balrog0 posted...

the literature is thin on this kind of direct control of their political engagement, but there is some research

Interesting, thanks for that

---

scar the 1 posted...

Interesting, thanks for that

Agreed.

---

Yawn

scar the 1 posted...

What? No, my premise is that people who worked with campaigning are saying that they've encountered instances where men attempt to exert power over their partner's votes. Did you read the replies to the tweet I linked?

So, your topic title was a lie?

---

"Oh great not another one of these campaign calls. Hm, who can I blame to get out of this one?"

---

DevsBro posted...

"Oh great not another one of these campaign calls. Hm, who can I blame to get out of this one?"

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh

---

guys I posted a scientiic article showing how husbands influence their wives political views but the reverse doesn't operate in the same way

I would say you should have something better to respond with than dismissive... uh... not even anecdotes, hypotheticals that explain away the problem?... but I know darkjedilink is literally unhinged and DevsBro has this weird thing where he pretends not to be political so I know it wont happen

---

DevsBro posted...

"Oh great not another one of these campaign calls. Hm, who can I blame to get out of this one?"

The existence of this does not imply the nonexistence of the other. Surely you're smart enough to understand that

---

scar the 1 posted...

The existence of this does not imply the nonexistence of the other. Surely you're smart enough to understand that

I'm not smart enough to understand anything, so point stands

---

DevsBro posted...

I'm not smart enough to understand anything, so point stands

Sure you are mr DevsBro, you just need to use your brain muscle a little

---

Wow, a new battlefront for women and allies alike. Storm the fucking beaches, y'all!

---