would a similar survey done with guys asking them to end men's suffrage produce any different result? nah.

This has been done before on...The Man Show. And yet again, women signed. Sad isn't it?

Hell, people are dumb enough to want to ban dihydrous monoxide, especially when they learn that inhalation is fatal.

On a related note, why are most well known comedians men?

i don't know...i'm a big margaret cho and sarah silverman fan

The funny thing is, Im a freak and dont even watch TV, and so maybe my impression is just pulled out of my ass. It does seem however that men are more heavily represented as hosts of comedy shows (think Leno, Stewart, Conan OBrien... of which are fantastic when I do watch em).

Its strange because male domination of the corporate stratosphere, the political arena, and fields of science and technology have all been endlessly stressed over and are understandable at some level to me.

Comedy, on the other hand, is puzzling. Maybe its a sexist assumption, but entertainment in general, including comedy, doesnt strike me as a field where women are less likely to pursue careers than men are.

Of course I'm mentioning all of this because it looks like the original pranksters were inspired by a couple of comedians.

Oh no--I think you're def right. There is a lack of women comedians--or at least ones that get a lot of gigs/tv/etc. I think because of the stereotype that women aren't funny. The latest issue of BUST magazine has a great piece on women comedians from back in the day...also check out this piece Ann did on Sarah Silverman a while back.

so, garrett -- If someone did circulate a petition to end male suffrage and, on some weird and fortuitous off-chance got it publicized, what do you think the result would be? how would it be spun? obviously everyone everywhere wouldn't point and laugh at those silly ignorant little men and call them too stupid to deserve to vote -- would they just dismiss it? attack that version for its lack of originality albeit with much more force? oh, for the free time to find out...

While they are probably statistically underrepresented, some women have absolutely risen to the top. Going way back was Carol Burnett. I don't know if you remember her pre-E! Network days, but Joan Rivers was the leading sub for Johnny Carson (remember him?) on the Tonight Show back when that was a big deal. Fox Network gave her a nightly talk show of her own, probably around 1989 or '90. It didn't get great ratings and shortly thereafter became the Arsenio Hall Show. Also, Roseanna Barr went from standup to have a huge sitcom. A little more recently, Rosie O'Donnell went from standup to actually beat Oprah in the ratings with a daytime talk show (before she became really angry). There are a lot of successful, funny women out there, but maybe I see that more because I pay attention to comics.

Also, sorry, but I think Margaret Cho quit being funny about ten or twelve years ago.

You broads already got the right to vote!

The divorce rate would still be at 10%, baby killing in the womb would be illegal. etc.

Had we not let women vote. The elite knew that by allowing women to vote taxs would increase to provide wind bag women endless money to support aborions in all the countries in the world, or no new AID.

Face it, women are the real baby killers!

Why are men the best cooks. Women suck at their own feild as well!!!

Of course women find woman comedians funney. I don't and find it funney that the majority of them don't make much money. I would say 1 out of 11 female comedians can compete on the top level. Its like that on pretty much every level. Where women don't have head starts and affirmitive action parties. grrl power!!! YEAH!

Let's not get too heavy-hearted about this. "Suffrage" is not a term we use much in modern language so I wouldn't expect people to know what it means. In fact, do we ever use it besides in the context of the women's suffrage? I think this stupid stunt--like the Man Show one--is sad only in that it demonstrates that many women know little about their own political history. Of course, many men know little about women's political history. But we never hear about that.

My vote goes to the underlying message being the most distressing. Yes, it looked pretty sad having all those women make fools of themselves on TMS, but they probably spoke with dozens of women just to find a handful who were willing to sign their stupid petition. They also probably spoke with a number of men before they found the one who admonished them for wanting to take away women's right to vote.

Of course, anyone who takes a show that showcases beer drinking midgets and buxom babes on trampolines, seriously, probably didn't get the joke until the definition of suffrage was clarified for the viewer.

And to Verlch, if 1 out of 11 female comedians can compete at the top level then they're faring far better than their male counterparts. That is, unless you count ¼ of the business as “the top.�

C,

i think you overestimate all people's (well, american people's) understanding of history in general. beyond a few landmark dates in u.s. american history, an overwhelming majority of citizens here have an underwhelming command of history.

u.s. men do not only have a poor understanding of women's history but of men's history here as well as just general history (both domestic and international). this is part of why this country can go so wholeheartedly into wars against countries we've outfitted with weapons in the first place. memory is a scarce resource in this country.

speaking of which, verlch, i'd like to remind you that paint chips are not breakfast cereal. it may be too late, as you already are exhibit severe brain damage, but there may be hope. so, please, for the sake of everone, stop.

cheers!

ignore the troll, people.

I think the bigger questions tricks like this one and the question on banning water raise is the need to improve our educational system. Obviously, if people simply react against questions that sound scary but that they may not fully understand, the first tool we need to stress is critical thinking and not simply reacting without sufficient information.

CPE, what's funny is that when the old "feminization of education" debate gets trotted out, people say that the trend toward encouraging critical thinking (less emphasis on memorization, partial credit for math problems that you were on the right track to answering, etc.) is really a plot to raise female grades and, depending on who you're talking to, to either punish boys for being too smart or at least that it ignored the strengths of boys. I'm not buying it, personally - critical thinking is not a skill that is gendered. It's not encouraged to fix disparities in grades, it's emphasized because it's important. The methods used to teach it may not be perfect, they may need improvement or a huge overhaul, but it's pretty clear that memorization is not the be-all end-all of education.

What is really does is exemplify the value of polls, or rather the lack thereof.

In a country where not all citizens exercise their right to vote (astounding), I hardly think anyone is entitled to make comment on either the girls lack of history nor the boys for drawing it to attention. Far better they actually vote with due consideration when their time arrives.

More appropriate and relevent would have been a poll pertaining to Amendment XXVI Section 1.

"[T]he first tool we need to stress is critical thinking and not simply reacting without sufficient information."

Well, we all react to things from time to time without sufficient information (myself included). But what we really need to put an end to is signing petitions we haven't read and casting votes based on a gut reaction to the summary statement.

I find myself growing more and more disenchanted with the democratic process nearly every time we head for the polls. I couldn't tell you the last time I voted on every SF ballot measure and state Proposition, and I make a concerted effort to educate myself on the issues. But there's always something I don't understand well enough to feel comfortable enough about voting on.

Just take a look at the California 2003 recall election results starting on p.37 of the report you will see that of all the crazy candidates- the unknowns who barely even registered on the percentage points- an independent candidate who did no noteable campaigning, named George Schwartzman. It's pretty obvious that virtually every vote cast in his favor was meant to go to Schwartzenegger- as if his landslide victory wasn't proof enough that there are too many idiots voting.

Maybe people don't realize that the signature gatherers aren't usually volunteer activists but more like telemarketers who get paid for each person who buys their salespitch and signs their petition. Perhaps we can get some of the popular political commentators to mention such as Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken- it doesn't matter which side, both have their fair share of offenders.

Boy, that sure sounded snooty. With any luck it will be too unreadably long for anyone to notice.

My point was just that I agree with CPEphemeral. Anyone who doesn't think it's true should check out the fuss made over the 1-2 sentence summary blurb for any hotly debated ballot measure. The legislators know all too well that it doesn't really matter much what goes into the actual text. The voting public tends to go with their gut reaction to the wording on the actual ballot. Well, that and whatever their favorite talk show host, celebrity or newsrag tells them to think.

What I think is absolutely amazing ... US surplus at the end of the Clinton administration was $237 Billion ... 9 months on under Bush eroded to $127 Billion and currently running at a deficit of $477 Billion. You voted for him, why.

Though I never voted for Bush and have few kind words to say about him, I think it's only fair to point out that Clinton's greatly touted surplusses were only regarding the annual budget, and took place in times of great economic prosperity caused largely by an over-valued market. Since the budget is a percentage of the GDP, it was no great feat for the Clinton administration to stay well within it.

The Bush Administration's budget shortfalls wouldn't be so bad if the money was being used to help improve the lives of Americans, and not just the priviledged elite. If the money went into education (through scholarships, not as military recruitment incentives) and healthcare; that would be different. If we spent more on medical, environmental and technological research and development, creating jobs in scientific fields with goals that benefit humanity; that would be different.

But instead we've added even more debt to the disaster that Reagan started, and in doing so we've made the CEO-politico's even richer. The Carlyle group started putting billions worth of investment capital into the defense industry before the 2000 Republican primaries were over. And don't get me started on the trade defecit with China and the fact that GHWB was the head of the Asian Aquisition and Investment group at Carlyle until early '04 (just before the re-election).

Oh, what a tangent! I better stop.

"took place in times of great economic prosperity" I would have in the past agreed with this, but I think you do a injustice to the Clinton adminstration. I am not a fan of American politics, as history shows most/all are simply fulfilling their own agenda.

If one agrees with this train of thought, one should also agree "when America sneezes the rest of world catches cold", well I don't think my country has invested heavily in Kimberly-Clark shares lately, nor Canada for that matter.

The size of this deficit would appear to be an in-house problem. Nonetheless, I was simply staggered by the difference, regardless of cause and effect. Like I said I don't pay much attention to much that is American and this was the first time I had seen these figures, which I then think of in terms of non-existent healthcare.

The divorce rate would still be at 10%, baby killing in the womb would be illegal. etc.

Had we not let women vote.

You're an astounding idiot, V. Let me clue you in to what your church isn't telling you - abortion was legal in America from its inception all the way up to 1906 - long after the woman's sufferage movement was in full swing. In fact, abortion only became illegal when sufferage pioneers joined forces with physicians to put the midwives out of business.

I don't know where you got the idea that the earliest abortion was legal in the US was after Roe V. Wade, but you've been completely misinformed.

let's not get distracted by the media tricks here! This has nothing to do with sexism or who's more stupid. We're all the same stupid, ok?!
This is an example of the total failure that our educational system is. Let's look at the facts without letting the comments by schools, teachers and parents (and media I would say) get in the way: they are not effectivly teaching this kids not only what "suffrage" means (how is this possible?!) but also not to sign anything without reading or understanding what it is (and that's a lesson for life).
It's much easier to say "this is sexist and stupid" then try to understand what's wrong with the education this kids are getting and actually change something. Let's not fall in this trap, please!

52 million children have been killed by feminists.

Hardly something I've missed, its really sad.

Femists are pro choice, so that makes all of you murder's by association!

You guys do know it was just a prank? Who cares! It's just a hilarious prank about dumb people, not necessarily dumb women. Now I'm not a wife-beater or anything, but sometimes feminists can really get on my nerves. Women do not realize how good they have it. They have (LOLOLOLOL) an education system designed for them (work over knowledge), freedom of clothes, freedom of manipulation, a superior anatomy (chromosones), and better social skills. I wish feminists would just SHUT THE F*CK UP sometimes. You have the rights. The thing is, you may not be the best qualified to get the head honcho job. That and you don't appreciate any guy who opens the door for you, who picks up your books for you, or who does anything nice for you. Why? "Because it's what their supposed to do."

That is what is nice, American women represent only 2.5% of the worlds women, who needs them? There are women in all parts of the world, that would kill for 1/10th of what this hateful birds have. I will support them, give them a home to work out of, children to care for, and most of all love.

Love is something American women are missing out on completly in their blind rage against men. Its really sad!

I think plenty of women are funny, myself included, but few think about going into it as a profession, unlike this pretty hilarious mother here

OMIGOD there is another Letitia out there? WOW! Let's start a club!

;-)