If it's really okay, why not men?

I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
-Reuel Marc Gerecht, on Meet the Press

So, if it's acceptable to ignore the rights of half the population in your democracy, why not apply that here? The logical conclusion of Mr. Gerecht's comments is that we'd still have a democracy here even if men weren't allowed to vote. So, let's disenfranchise men.

While we're at it, their social rights can't be that critical, either. So we can keep our democracy and deny them the ability to own property, can't we? It's not really critical to the evolution of our democracy to allow them to drive, is it? Where exactly is the line, Mr. Gerecht? How many of their rights can we take away and still be a democracy?

I'm sure Mr. Gerecht would be willing to give up his rights to choose his own mate, be protected from assault from that mate, be educated, and make his own choices, all in the greater good of the pursuit of democracy. What do you say, Mr. Gerecht? Or do you think men's rights are critical, while women's are just nice to have?