@Tomv55308850@steve14247@Timcast Global population is still growing, yes, primarily because of the third world.
Producing nothing but unmarried cat ladies and importing folks from Bangladesh is not a sustainable model for a nation.
@Tomv55308850@steve14247@Timcast Population is only growing because you're importing people from other countries... which is another problem in and of itself.
By a lot of metrics, the world got better. Much better. People die from obesity rather than starvation now, obviously the world has improved in many, many ways.
But ****SOCIETY**** has gotten worse. You cannot look at our current society and come away with the idea that things have improved.
The fertility rate in the US at the turn of the last century was around 3.5.
Today it's 1.6. *And falling*.
You are watching society collapse in slow motion.
You're Wile-E-Coyote, running off the cliff, and you haven't looked down yet.
You have no idea how bad things are going to get.
@calvinrobinson The Jews are fine.
Stop worrying about the Jews.
Start worrying about the Marxists.
If you can't tell the difference, it's because you've been listening to Marxists.
The world got better not because women voted, but despite it.
The industrial revolution was responsible for the bulk of it. The free market and global trade was responsible for the remainder.
Women voting did little other than steadily increase the welfare state, year on year, to the point now where Australia (my nation) is $ 1.6 Trillion in debt and the US (your nation) is $ 39 Trillion in debt.
If you're happy, great. Good for you.
In aggregate, happiness of both sexes, but particularly women, has gone down, way down, year on year, since women entered the workforce during and after ww2.
The numbers have been run. The studies have been done. Women who get married young and start a family are happier than women who go to university and start a career.
The reasons behind this should've been obvious:
A woman, surrounded by her own children, in their own home is going to be happier than a woman, surrounded by cats, in a studio apartment they can't afford because of student debt.
It's not fkn rocket surgery.
Similar to what I suggest:
Just make voting compulsory for everyone eligible to be drafted.
Only about half the US votes. That's men, and women.
If you force the other half of men to vote (ones eligible to be drafted, anyway) the ratio swings back towards providers determining policy, and away from caregivers determining policy.
I'm not projecting anything onto women.
I just think that what we chose to do to them over the last century has been unfathomably cruel to them, and the effects of those choices have been detrimental to society as a whole.
This isn't a zero sum game where "women lose" and "men win". It's about what's best for society as a whole, and what makes people satisfied and fulfilled.
Women aren't happy now.
Men aren't happy now.
Birth-rates have plummeted.
And it's all downstream from two things:
Women voting.
Women prioritising careers over family.
Now, does repealing the 19th amendment fixt that? Probably not. We've gone down this road for a century, it's going to take a century of determined effort, from everyone, to fix it.
I don't plan on eliminating anyones ability to vote. I've got a better solution:
Just make voting compulsory for everyone who is eligible to be drafted. Numbers are rebalanced, political incentives are produced, order is restored, and you avoid all the screeching feminists.
My question for you, is this:
Do you think women voting has made society better, or worse?
@MattiDoe@StefanMolyneux You can, it's just largely ineffective.
Let me bottom line it for you in a way you'll hopefully understand:
>>If you keep shitting on the floor, the flies will keep coming.
>>Putting a net over the shit doesn't help.
>>You need to stop shitting on the floor.
@Tomv55308850@steve14247@Timcast Why do 3/4 of university degrees amount to useless, bureaucratic nonsense?
I'm sure you'd discover a similar root cause.
As an original, unattributed child’s drawing of high charm and condition (unfolded, minimal smudging), this piece would likely fetch $80 – $250 USD at a specialist auction of outsider/folk/children’s art (e.g., through houses like Heritage Auctions’ illustration department, or niche sales at Swann or smaller ethnographic auctions). Exceptional provenance—such as a photograph of the child creating it, or celebrity ownership—could push it toward the $400 – $800 range. Without such context, its primary value lies in decorative appeal and nostalgic resonance rather than blue-chip investment potential. Comparable naïve holiday drawings by unknown children routinely sell in this bracket when well-presented and photographed.
Though created by an anonymous child, such drawings collectively form a vast, under-appreciated archive of cultural memory. They document the transmission of holiday rituals across generations and serve as powerful antidotes to cynicism in an age of digital overstimulation. In educational and psychological contexts, works like this are used to assess developmental milestones, emotional well-being, and creative confidence. Public exhibitions of children’s Christmas art (common in community centers, libraries, and online viral compilations) foster intergenerational empathy and remind adult audiences of lost innocence. In a broader societal sense, these pieces reinforce the importance of unstructured creative play amid increasing academic pressure on young children. They humanize the holiday season, countering commercial excess with genuine wonder.