So, why is it that men tend to lean conservative and women lean liberal?

Men are more likely to fall for the GOP lie that you can be totally self sufficient while women realize that "no man is an island."

I don't believe in perpetuating gender stereotypes, but that's as good a way of putting as any I've seen.

That said, the only Bush voter I know of in my family was my grandmother. (Grandfather would've, but he's dead).

...intelligent compromise, the importance of gray areas between black and white. They are usually more accustomed to working together to produce a solution that benefits a group rather than being convinced to go for a quicker fix that looks good but ultimately fails. And women also tend to be quicker to find common ground with people who come from different backgrounds; in this sense they are sometimes less "tribal." As I said, this is on average. There are exceptions in both genders.

I also think that, since most politicians are male, they tend to produce talking points that work better on other men. Women are more likely to question their claims in part because the language usually isn't really targetted to their perceptions and concerns.

Men are significangly lacking. Even the good ones!

The big f^#&ing bazooka-sized phallic symbols we're shooting at the Iraqis. Of course, this political analysis is coming after a bit of alcohol...

:beer: :toast: :hi:

the authoritarian position.....in other words they think daddy knows best and in their minds they are daddy.

Oh, and the guns thing.

What a big question! I've read that single women tend heavily toward liberal, but that married women tend to be more conservative. The theory is that single women, who have no family to protect and no man to care for them, look to the government to take care of their needs. Whereas married women, who now have kids, think more in terms of their own little unit so they want lower taxes, SUV's, more breaks for corporations to keep the income coming in, higher property values, better schools, etc. I was hugely leftist in college, and have moved to the right since marriage and kids. Still a proud Dem, but able to see some points on the other side. My husband is a big Bush guy. Even gave $100 bucks to Heritage. I, of course, had to match him by contributing to Dean. He hated writing that check! :)

As a general comment, I am new to DU but may not fit the mold. I don't think Bush is evil, I don't believe conservatives are the devil, etc. I can talk policy all day long, but spare me the "Bush is Hitler" diatribes. They don't advance the discussion and certainly don't add anything of significance to the Democratic movement.

By the way, men are conservative because they can shoot guns and kill things. ha ha.

I can't help but disagree with you concerning the Hitler/Bush comparison. My husband's family went through the second world war as Catholic German citizens; my sister's family by marriage went through the war as Jews. On both sides people were lost. The comments being made by those remaining & who emigrated to the U.S. are telling. Bush gives them the willies. While he makes an obvious appeal to the religious nature of Americans by referring to his own pious leanings, he makes legitimate his personal war on Iraq resulting in thousands of deaths and gives the nod to torture as a means of gaining information. His administration talks of "death squads." He scares the hell out of Americans with his ridiculous alert systems and interestingly timed warnings, telling us the blatant lie, "The enemy hates our freedom." The people buy it and are willing to give up much in the name of security. Nonchristians, women, the poor and homosexuals are marginalized under his watch by an increasingly conservative media, while traditional heroes and what are sneeringly termed "intellectuals" are derided. (oh, the irony) And, as in prewar Germany, our citizens absorb the changes with unnerving complacency. At what point will we wake up? Upon another declaration of war? When terrorists manage to again attack despite our Resident's claims that all that can be done to secure us has been done? When our sons are drafted in the name of God or Oil? My in-laws tell me that their awakening was rude and shocking and for some, fatal. And they're feeling the same vibrations today. Paranoia? Hard to say. They've been through what I have not, so I take their warnings seriously.

I DON'T WANT TO Believe that Bush could pull off what Hitler did -
* kill over 6 million people before he was brought down
* make "certain" groups of people inferior in the government's eyes
* keep the "superior" groups of people protected and complacent
* stoke up enough fear that the UNDERGROUND was the only safe place to fight back
* control the press 100% so it was all propoganda

I DON'T WANT TO put Braless down, but my gut says she isn't feeling the pain of what's going on for a lot of us because she's in a protected class situation with a Republican husband and enough money to afford an SUV even if she doesn't own one.

AND I keep HEARING about Bush's piousness, but I don't think that being able to TALK the TALK is the same as WALKING the WALK.

If someone can convince me that Bush is really just a man of faith who occassionally stumbles and never intentionally causes pain, I'd be able to sleep at night and just keep working for 2008.

You are correct that economically I haven't felt the pain of the last four years. Actually, for our family our finances have greatly improved over the last four years. Not as a result of Bush, though. It just happened to coincide with getting better jobs, promotions, raises, bonuses, etc. We bought a new house in 2003 and yes, we recently bought a Toyota Highlander because our old Saturn was too small for two kids. So you are correct that I can't personally identify with being poor. But I hope that there isn't some sort of economic criteria necessary to post messages on this board. After all, our latest candidate for Prez was worth hundreds of millions, owned mansions, etc. That didn't seem to stop people from listening to him.

Actually, I think we give the Prez too much credit for the economy, good or bad. There are a lot of forces out there that are bigger than just one person.

I mean he has a Republican House and Senate and support of Greenspan and the SCOTUS. His policies go through quite easily compared to other presidents. He cut taxes and is fighting an expensive and unnecessary war which have driven up the deficit. He is doing nothing about outsourcing and illegal immigration - making the trade deficit worse. He is hurting the environment. He could be doing a lot more to promote new technologies to get the U.S. off foreign oil. The incompetence of his administration made 9/11 much easier for the terrorists. Of course - after his dismal performance running businesses into the ground - what else could we expect? Republicans HAVE to say the President has little to do with the economy because there is no other way to explain a great economy under Clinton and a train wreak under Bush. I'll admit the Clinton economic boom could not last - but the incompetence of this administration made the economy much worse than it would have been under a competent administration.

In my eyes Bush/Chenny are completely evil - causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Iraqi children are starving to death. Look at your children and imagine them starving - then tell me Bush is not evil! And people who drive gas guzzling SUVs are making things worse not better.

I make things worse by driving an SUV? Sorry, my kids are a lot safer in an SUV than being crammed into a tiny compact car. I'll accept the trade-off of using more gas. Sorry to offend. But I do see a lot of SUV's with Kerry bumper stickers so I guess I'm not the only one.

But they sure make your penis feel bigger, don't they?

I'm a woman. Care to make another silly comment now that you know the correct anatomy?

OOPS - Duplicate

I have to fend for my son - with no help from my ex (deadbeat Dad thing going on - long story).

I have my own little "unit." I still drive a Mustang (WTF would a 5'1", 125-pound woman need with a huge SUV?) and I'm also for bettering schools - which is why I'm involved with my son's education. I can change my own oil, lay tile - I do hire someone to do the plumbing because, well, that's just icky - and kill my own spiders (actually, I don't kill spiders. I move them outside so they can kill the bugs I don't like).

I'm not raking you - I'm just wondering about the answer to that question.

Maybe women are more liberal because we don't want to be put in a box anymore.

:shrug:

I work almost exclusively with Republican men. I listen to them talk politics all day long. know why they lean right - FEAR - GREED and HATRED. Yup - that pretty much sums it up!

I, for one, welcome your levelheaded approach to politics!:)

Thanks, Heaven and Earth: What a fun place to let off some steam and let my opinions loose!

If I had to put my political thoughts into one sentence it would be this: We need to deal with issues, not engage in hyperbole. So for those of you who want to spend your day comparing Bush to Hitler, listen up: there is no comparison. I can't put it any plainer than this -- Hitler had a plan in place to actually KILL an entire segment of society. Men, women, children -- it didn't matter. He herded them into cattle cars, took them to concentration camps, and KILLED them. Do you people not understand that?! As much as you may disagree with Bush, can you at least admit that he has not built death camps, that he has not targeted a segment of the population for death, that he has not sent out SS squads to round people up, etc. If you disagree with Bush's policies, please do so loud and clear (the environment, the war, tax cuts, social security, etc.). Let'er rip!!! But this whole line of thought that Bush's presidency is "eerily similar" to Hitler is just plain whacko. So Bush is religious. So what? I am too.

Also, I had some friends who, before the election, predicted that Bush would declare martial law and cancel the election. oops.

I can show you unmitigated proof they didn't.

Look, I disagree with the Iraq war. I was much in favor of containment and rendering Saddam impotent. So we are in agreement there. The war is wrong. But your logic is so flawed as to be beyond belief. The fact that innocent children have been killed by U.S. bombs means that Bush is like Hitler?? As people are fond of saying around here, WTF?! By your logic, Clinton must be Hitler because I'm sure kids died during his various bombing campaigns. FDR must be Hitler because innocent German kids were killed in WWII. The point I was making about Bush is that he has not targeted a segment of the population for destruction like Hitler did. That's all.

I agree with you that jumping to something so volatile to describe our political enemies is a tactic that the GOP uses to marginalize democrats as "commies and socialists."

HOWEVER, there are many elements of both corpo-fascism and fascism in the philosophy of the Bush administration and current GOP leaders and thinkers. This is undeniable. There are many reasons to be concerned, and most of it IS on a higher level than "disagreeing with his policy."

They say that these struggles are never between the citizens, who are pawns, but the intellectuals of a given society. The left and right-wing intellectuals are locked in a Godzilla v. Mothra battle that is not necessarily new, but has been elevated by the hubris of the intellectual right, and the fact that they have perfected propaganda, and a network of media to get out that propaganda, that psychologically plays on the fears and ignorance of most Americans.

This has nothing to do with "policy." Many of the Democratic Party's policies poll higher than Repubican ones. It's about rhetoric and idealism and dogmatism. In that arena, the rootless, magical-thinking of fascism has much in common with the self-admitted "history's actors" of the Republican party who have a disdain for modernity, the Enlightenment and egalitarianism.

That's first off. Second, your own rhetoric is betraying you -- single women do not necessarily "look to the government," to solve their problems, and even if they were, they wouldn't be alone -- actually, corporations, the religious right, farmers, those scared of terrorism, military families and pork-laden home districts also look to the government for bailout, re-distribution, unneccessary government spending, jobs through bureaucracy, enforcement of morality and vengeance.

If you think Republican family units are not "dependent on the government," you've been sorely mislead. They just want to pay fewer taxes. They want the government to make them safe, kick the liberals out of their schools, bailout and subsidize their businesses and companies, promote conservative and religious social institutions, and myriad other things.

I welcome you here, but keep your ears open, and learn.

they are paying everything on their own, in a marriage, you could at least know that if you aren't paying for everything, or you lose your job, there's still at least one income coming in.

Single women don't have that luxury, and we DO have responsibilities. I hate it when the media put down single women's choices as being somewhat selfish, and that married women are somehow better, wiser people. Hogwash.

It could be argued that married women become under the domination of their husbands' ruling the roost.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

Liberal women, married or single do not look to the government to take care of them. Generally speaking, we have careers, volunteer our time to help others, and work for social justice.

We tend to feel an obligation to ourselves, our families, communities and to the rest of the world.

Some married women become lazy & look to the MSM & their hubbies as their only sources of information. So they become susceptible to the lies & fear mongering put by the gop.

Some people are just followers who don't think independently. In collage it is 'cool' to be more liberal; everyone wants to fit in. Once away from academic thought & culture,the followers will seek to adapt *their* views to fit better with their husband, his family, and their church.

Me, I'm a grandmother of two. Was born liberal. Will die liberal.

deleted sexist rant.

I DON'T WANT TO Believe that Bush could pull off what Hitler did -
* kill over 6 million people before he was brought down
* make "certain" groups of people inferior in the government's eyes
* keep the "superior" groups of people protected and complacent
* stoke up enough fear that the UNDERGROUND was the only safe place to fight back
* control the press 100% so it was all propoganda

I DON'T WANT TO put you down, but my gut says you aren't feeling the pain of what's going on for a lot of us because you're in a protected class situation with a Republican husband and enough money to afford an SUV even if you don't own one.

If you are truly feeling the pain, I apologize, but I doubt you could be so flippant if you were.

AND I keep HEARING about Bush's piousness, but I don't think that being able to TALK the TALK is the same as WALKING the WALK.

If someone can convince me that Bush is really just a man of faith who occassionally stumbles and never intentionally causes pain, I'd be able to sleep at night and just keep working for 2008.

Please, convince me. Please tell me what your definition of "evil" is and maybe I will understand. By the way, I have finally come to forgive Hitler for the things he did and view him as a "tool" of the devil rather than an evil man, but he was an abused child and warped against Jews from day one.

I don't think it's possible for me to understand Bush's motivations because I just don't live in his world. A man who buys himself a yacht while his country is in the trouble it's in seems like a spoiled child to me. Maybe not evil, but not an adult capable of making the decisions needed to bring this country up out of the mess we're in now.

..though it's a matter of perspective, not of what's between your legs.


The tendency in right-wing thinking is toward nationalism, and towards ever-smaller groups defined as "who matters". This ranges all the way from the mainstream media not covering Iraqi deaths at all because apparently their lives aren't as valuable as Americans', down to total "looking out for number one" libertarianism. The pro-natalist, gated-community focus on one's own immediate genetic propagation unit as though it's some kind of great higher good is another example.

But the liberal philosophy tries to expand its sphere of sympathy outwards:

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee." --John Donne


"If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription drugs and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties." --Barack Obama


Now, note that both the authors of those lines saying the same thing in different ways are male; it's not a gender thing! But it is true often that, from childhood, women are taught to value empathy and relationship as a survival strategy and men are encouraged to be more stand-alone and individualistic. But of course, all generalizations are bullshit, including this one. :)

I know tons of Democrats who "have guns and kill things." My father carried a gun as part of his job until he retired. Part of the social contract, you know--law enforcement's a risky job, but someone has to do it. He believes in "ask what you can do for your country." That's why he's a Socialist who votes Democrat. Lots of "I got mine" individualists have no idea how much their lives would suck if it weren't for people like him in every field, everywhere.

Totally different approaches to parenting, that often carry over into politics

it was Beavis and Butthead doing the talking.

So, why is it that men tend to vote more Republican and women more Democratic?

Butthead: Because men are stupid.

Beavis: huh,huh,huh -- oh yeah, that's right, stupid.

On edit, for a place interested in diversity and equality, there sure are a lot of blanket insults thrown around here. There doesn't ever seem to be an abortion thread where someone doesn't throw in that they don't give a s**t what men think and they should just shut the f**k up. Is there a night that goes by without a thread bashing the south or southerners?

God needs to be looking for a new job since we have self-appointed judges right here who have already sorted out who is smart, who is stupid, who's opinions have merit, who deserves to talk, and who doesn't.

That's the end of my rant, but I'm sick of it.

I doubt anyone actually meant any of this. I know I didn't.
As a side point, I don't think DU members in general are interested in diversity of thought. Often when someone posts something that others disagree with, they are accused of being a "freeper mole."

Edit: Of all the comments on this thread, why did you pick mine to express your rant? I said the least of everyone here.

I agree with your points.

that's the way it should be.

abortion. Want to explain that to me again? I don't even care what other women think about abortion. I know that there are enough pro-choice women and men to do major damage to any anti-choice candidate. That's all that counts.

And besides, it's not just theory to us. We are the ones who clean up the results of life's accidents, we know few of us are in a position to do it all by ourselves.

just a thought...my mom didn't vote for bush bc of that...she didn't vote for kerry tho....O.o

and my grandma voted for bush, bc she's crazy...(my grandpa voted for KERRY, despite being a staunch repub...i guess he liked the democrat positions on medicare etc.)

Per gender, anyway. Of course, I live in a red state, where most people, male and female, lean conservative. I think it's more a personal tendency to lean one way or the other, not whether you're XX or XY.

Women already know they are.

Jesus was a liberal. What a wussy.

I question everything. I've never been able to simply accept that something IS a certain way. I have to know why it's that way and how it works. I need to know the whys and hows.

Conservatism is about CONTROL.

"everyone for himself" and "making those poor people shape up."

That's tremendously appealing to macho men, especially if they've been brought up to despise their gentler side.

of 'real men.' It tends to attract insecure types of men who are looking for membership in the 'real man' club, and women who were raised in these types of households.

The Conservative philosophy is basically let people fend for themselves. The government should do little and charge little in taxes.

To a single man who has no one to take care of but himself, that may be an attractive philosophy.

To a married man, the corrolary is let each family take care of itself. Again a conservative philosophy.

The liberal position is that we are all in this world together, and we need to do more to help each other which will require more tax dollars.

This is an especially attractive philosophy to single women who can see themselves alone raising three kids by themselves some day. They can see why help should be available.

Married women would naturally be in the same boat but to a lesser extent since they have a family to back them up, though they can see how all that can change at any time. Therefore, married women vote Democratic to a much lesser degree than single women.

So, it all comes down to who's responsible for raising the kids and providing support to that person if needed. Or that's how my sociology professor explained it to me 25 years ago anyway.

:shrug:

Sorry, but someone had to say it. :7

"The future of the world depends on Women. They are so much less afraid of the new -- the daring things -- than Men. Men don't evolute at all, you know. They're now just about the way they have always been. And Women have grown...until they've reached the place where they must lead Men."
(as evidenced by Barbara Boxer!)

...why do you ask? You posted a very vague question with no supporting data. What do you mean by "conservative" and "liberal"? What are you using to to make your determination?

By looking at the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll results as currently posted on CNN (and ignoring their questionable provenance) it shows that the Republican (I assume this is what you meant by "conservative") and Democratic (I assume that this is what you mean by "liberal") votes are not consistently split by gender and that race is a significant factor.

Would you like to clarify your premise or the question?

If you can't explain the purpose behind your question and be more specific, then you are in danger of provoking a bunch of useless sexist knee-jerk reactions... unless that is what you intended. The fact that you have not responded to any posts in this thread makes me think that the latter is true: it's your serve.

Wrinkle in Time... who doesn't?

Especially stupid white men.

men are traditionally the bread-winners, they work all week and see most of the paycheck going for taxes and government projects seen as "wasteful", plus there's all the government regulations which make their jobs harder

repug party supposedly stands for less taxes and less government interference

women traditionally stay home, they are the caretakers. Their focus is on the well-being of the family and community. Dems supposedly stand for the little guy and social concerns

PLEASE NOTE - I SAID TRADITIONALLY.

As women enter the workfield on a career path and become focused on their jobs either as a sole supporter or as a two-job family -- they see the same things as the "traditional" man sees it -- and increasingly over the years more women are becoming republican or at least more conservative

Meanwhile, the opposite is occuring among men who stay at home to take care of the family -- they are more like to vote DEM

Look deeper.
I personally can not understand why anyone would support criminals and liars. I am male.

KL

uppity women and limp wristed homos...
There are of course good, evolved men - and they are here.

And so they vote for such Manly Things as war, patriarchy and homophobia. So they can prove they're Real Men, you see.

more compassionate than men.

-P

as opposed to blowing it up.

Fifty percent of the representation should be female in Washington, just like the population, period.

We still have a long way to go.

the spirit of women remembers when we were the property of men.

Because a poll said so?

. . .and some men agree with this or don't care.

Look at other conservative societies - like Saudi Arabia. Women aren't even allowed to drive.

Women benefit from progress.

No offense, guys, but people flock to what's in their best interest. Conservative social institutions promote the following things:

1. Man as the household leader.

2. Restricts womens' access to capital, and therefore, decision making.

3. Creats a domain of the male and a domain of the female, where men can escape female intervention in their operations. The communicative style of men and women are also different. Men are more avoidant. That is why the "football game," the "hunting trip," et. al., are so important. In this space it is truly where the man feels most comfortable.

4. Men, seen as primary breadwinners, still, have more to fear from women and minorities as far as "sharing the economic pie." They feel threatened by affirmative action, discrimination laws -- and the encroachment of women into their space. I think this has changed on most levels, but I still think there is a great subconscious fear from white males about perceived powerlessness and women and minorities usurping their position of privilege, which leads to...

5. The Republican party provides validation for these fears, and supports the policies of these fears. Not only in policy, though -- but also in rhetoric -- the bravado and hubris of the Bush administration APPEALS to those who feel powerless, because it gives them a way to be vicariously dominant.

6. The Republican party has long portrayed the Democrats of being "sensitive," "tree-hugging," "feminine," etc. -- while not only untrue (haven't you ever see a freeper wax pathetic over 9-11 or the military?), which, due to socialization of the male in our society, and perhaps, somewhat biologically, are qualities that run contrary to what most collective Americans think a male is supposed to be.

7. Also, I think, because males still make more money, and still own more businesses, since the GOP is seen more favorably as business friendly, this has something to do with it as well.

I'd like to say that this is not a general indictment of males -- both my dad and brother are macho knuckleheads, and tend to identify with Republicans, but they vote Democrat -- it's weird. I think it is because they're both a little more kind than many of the so-called meathead males -- (no offense meatheads :)). I think this religion plays a lot into it, as well -- if you honestly believe in the bullshit that men are superior to women, and it is validated by the eternal-end-all-be-all-of-flat-screen-and-mammon American Jesus, then, of course, you're going to be Republican.

The Democrats have plenty of males with balls, who are working class, and even just as big of assholes at the GOP. Usually these guys have a unifying hate of the rich, and are pro-union, though -- and a slight distrust for the over-ly religious, though they share some interests with the social programs of the religious right.

Most men have access to only two emotions, anger and sadness. When they're hurt, they usually get sad, for awhile, then they get pissed, at the woman that hurt them, the father they couldn't access, the government that rips them off and lies to them, you get my meaning. The GOP tapped into the anger, remember 'angry white males?' They continue to exploit that anger and use the fascist tactic of creating scapegoat groups, ala, women, gays, liberals, ragheads, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, liberal news media, ect., ect.

Let's face the fact that the women's movement only reached a minority of American men. Those who care about women and want to coexist with them. There's not enough of us that heard womankind's message to us and worked to incorporate some of our own feminine aspects into our nature. Most men became what I call, "sensitive chauvinists." Meaning, 'I care what your feeling, but it just doesn't matter.' Most men cave to peer pressure if they get ridiculed for acting anything less than the macho stereotype. It takes courage to swim against the stream of traditional male behavior. I know, I suffered, and continue to suffer, for not adopting and standing up to traditional male behavior. I'm just fortunate enough to be 6'2" and athletic.

One where the answers could be easily manipulated into propaganda for the RNC.

I've been noticing an uptick of those type of questions lately.

Men have more advantages in society and they'd rather keep it that way, hence the term conservative. Women tend to want change in order to achieve equality which cannot occur if things stay the same. That's why I don't understand conservative women or minorities for that matter.

On edit: I don't mean to stereotype all men because I know many great guys who are pleasantly liberal :)

"the Wimp Factor: gender gaps, holy wars, and the politics of anxious masculinity" by Stephen J. Ducat (professor of psychology, and liscensed clinical pyschiatrist) addresses this why men go conservative anyway) in his book.

<snip>

A landmark exploration of how male anxiety has come to define our political culture

What is the link between wimp factors, gender gaps, and holy wars—three recognizable political phenomena of the twenty-first century? In this eye-opening book on how male anxiety has come to shape political thinking and behavior, Dr. Stephen Ducat argues that there is a direct association between the magnitude of a man"s femiphobia and his tendency to embrace right-wing political opinions.

Dr. Ducat shows how anxious masculinity has been a discernible subtext in politics throughout the history of Western culture—from the political campaigns of ancient Greece to the current contest for the presidency, and including everything in between, like cartoons of George H. W. Bush exposing his "wimp factor," the demonization of Hillary Clinton, and the recent war in Iraq. He also explores why and how political issues—such as environmental protection, support for war, welfare reform, immigration, and crime and punishment—get gendered.

<snip>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807043443/qid=1105905773/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-6118118-6062440

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

lean conservative. Why do they need their own party? Hmmmm.

This is going back in my head to college in the 60s, but if I recall correctly, the women tend to side with policies that preserve life whereas the men tend to side with abstract principles. These qualities can be construed as the basics of the liberal and conservative positions.

As my muddled mind recalls, this was acted out in "Antigone".

But don't quote me.

This, of course, does not include me.

The real fight against genetic cloning is a rear-guard action by the patriarchy to retain some useful function for men. When that hits, women don't need us. They'll breed some "handyman" and "heavy lifting" stud muffins who cannot talk and that will be it.

there are more men in prison than women.

Think how much whe women will save in "future world" with a 90% cut in prison expenses.

And, I guess that means that conservatives are, uh... not weak?

Of course, that doesn't explain why so many conservatives are chickehawk asswipes, does it?