"It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."
Nevertheless it should be possible to discuss the results of giving women the right to vote. The main difference from state of affairs before that presumably being that people got to vote on things they did not have direct stakes in.
Or to give a modern example: afaik more women are opposed to abortion than men, so giving women the right the vote makes it less likely that abortion is legalized. At least some people would consider that a negative outcome.
A single Google search would tell you that's entirely wrong: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.a...
"Other polls have appeared since that article, and they show the same thing. A 2013 YouGov poll on behalf of the University of Lancaster found 26% of men supporting a reduction or ban, versus 43% of women."
You linked to an article from 2014 about surveys from 2011.
Source please?
> Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
This is not suggesting that anybody’s right to vote should be revoked. It’s pointing out that women have typically voted in opposition to libertarian/capitalist policies. And he might not like this outcome, but not liking something is not the same as saying it shouldn’t exist.
I’m not a libertarian and I’m opposed to many of Thiel’s viewpoints, but we can have an honest discussion about what he has and hasn’t said.
Disenfranchising adult women's right to vote on the basis of their gender is an attack on fundamental human rights.