i agree? but you and others like you miss the bigger picture. all you can see is the isolated individual detached from society, all you can see is what affects you personally. you can't seem to get out of that bubble of a head of yours.

the fact that women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 is indicative of a lot more things than just the mere ability to vote. it speaks to the political, social, and economic power that women had at the time, which is passed down through time, because it's not just the legal ability to vote that the law concerns. it means that women were considered second-class citizens, which has a lot more social consequences that just not being able to vote. it speaks to women's entire position in society, not just concerning the ability to vote. women weren't made second-class citizens because they didn't have the right to vote, women didn't have the right to vote because they were considered second-class citizens. it's not just about the right to vote. that women didn't have the right to vote is indicative of their social standing just less than a century ago. just less than a century ago. like you said, women are allowed to vote today; i honestly couldn't give less of a god damn shit about that part -- the purpose of my bringing that up, what the fact that women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 reveals and is indicative of, is the social, political, and economic imbalance that existed, and still exists, because, like i said, not having the right to vote is indicative of a lot of other social circumstances, specifically, relating to women's social, economic, and political power, which is reflected in more enduring aspects of society than just the legal right to vote, like the fact that 80% of congress is men.