ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Mailvox: a woman's take on female suffrage

It's nice to see a woman actually reflect upon the issue rather than reacting emotionally to it. Ironically, only women who could most likely be trusted with the vote are able to do so. I've yet to run into a woman who is able to even try to defend female suffrage on any basis beyond a) personal feelings, b) "fairness", and c) an appeal to the Unicorn of Equality.
I read “Mailvox: Stampeding the Sheep” with great interest.  The first time I ever heard someone suggest that women should not vote was my mother when I was a child.  I am 47 years old so it was some years ago.  The second time I heard this was from you.  I use to think my mom was just nuts, but her words left me wondering.  Here’s why:
  • Invincible:  I believed I could do everything a man could.  I graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, served as an intel and targeting officer for 7 years before realizing my true vocation was wife and mother.  Although my mom despised women in general, she hated the idea that I married (right after graduating) and started to have kids.  She was terrified I would be completely dependent on a man like she was.  Why is this important?  Simply because the feminists have ingrained in my generation a complete (and unreasonable) fear of male dominance.
  • Vote:  Why should women not vote?  I thought about this for years.  I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men.  However, that does not outweigh one important limitation:  emotion.  This is what you brought up in your post.  Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions.  For us, this is an immediate response to whatever happens around us (perhaps this is one of the reasons we immediately bond with our babies so it’s not a bad thing if used correctly).  Men, on the other hand, hold back their emotions, but if they do not eventually act, they explode.  My experience tells me women explode immediately without thought and men explode later with thought.  Most women vote because of how they FEEL.  Bad move.  It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.
  • Need: Women also have an innate need to be cared for, protected, and loved.  This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling.  The problem is the Baby Boomers are responsible for two generations (Gen X and the Millennials) that are incapable of doing anything (Yes, I blame the Baby Boomers, but I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them).  Women just replaced their men with a colder, harsher, less faithful spouse, the government.  Unfortunately, while men are neutered, women think they are Black Widow.
  • Black Widow:  I really believed I could be as strong, as fast, and as fierce as any man.  I just had to work hard.  Why?  Because the feminists who indoctrinated me said so.  I’m ex military, dabbled in martial arts, love cross-fit, and keep a personal trainer.  No matter what I try to do physically, I CANNOT compete with a man (OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys).  The only thing that evens out this playing field is a gun (arm up feminists because men aren’t going to help you).  The feminists set their little darling daughters up for complete failure.  We could not compete in this way, but our mom’s insisted our self-worth must be measured against a man’s.  What did that mean?  ALL women are failures by this standard.  That reality hit me hard because it meant women are useless (this kind of supports the Muslim teachings doesn’t it?  Thanks, feminists.  No wonder you are silent with Islamic FGM)
  • Baby Making:  Yep.  This is what completes a woman.  It is not to say that some women cannot succeed in careers.  Many have exceptional skills and should pursue their God given talent.  However, the feminists told us making babies is for stupid women (you know, the surrogates they pay to have their babies for them).  That’s NOT true.  The first time I felt that I actually accomplished something, was the day I first held my daughter. 
  • Men:  My fear of only men having the vote was unfounded.  My man would NEVER vote against his family’s best interest.  Neither would any man I know.  There is a trade off, however.  Men, you need to man up and demand your rights.  That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world.  As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it.  We pass on culture, tradition, and history.  This is why Islam cannot coincide with Christians:  they hate, despise, and denigrate women.  I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated.  Well, the West has also harmed the proper role of women, just not to the same degree as Islam (Islam also has the benefit of more than 1000 years to make their brain damage permanent).  Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal. 
I have so much more to say, but I am grateful if you read this.  Mr. Day, you are right and if more men stand up, women will be much happier.  Most of my generation don’t even know what happened because we never saw what the Baby Boomers had (their moms in their proper and much happier roles in the home).  I’ve seen both sides of this issue.  The feminists built a very dark place for their daughters.  Will we recognize what they did before it comes crashing down?  I doubt it.  Perhaps Islam will open women’s eyes to what they have and thank God everyday for Christianity.  If we want men to protect us, we cannot vote against them.  They alone must have this power.
The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism, most likely of the sort that comes about through societal collapse. The one possible non-catastrophic solution, which is probably already too late now that Obama and Mutti Merkel have combined to unleash a Muslim invasion of the West, is direct democracy.

And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization.

Labels: , ,

198 Comments:

Blogger dienw February 07, 2016 12:22 PM  

Men, you need to man up and demand your rights. That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you.

Reason 102,002 as to why Roman Catholicism is not Christian; it is merely pagan sun worship covering itself with Christ words.

Blogger Desiderius February 07, 2016 12:28 PM  

"I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them"

The problem is that they didn't raise them. Abandoning the doctrine of Original Sin, they didn't believe there was anywhere to raise them to.

Blogger Shimshon February 07, 2016 12:38 PM  

Back in 2000, I remember a woman bemoaning her sex and their tendency to vote left, and offered to happily give up her right to vote, if it meant ending the vote of all women. Was very enlightening to hear at the time.

Anonymous Quartermaster February 07, 2016 12:38 PM  

@1
That is not compatible with Roman Catholic teaching. I've studied them, and have not seen that nonsense anywhere in official sources.

@2
You are correct. They didn't arise their kids, they gave them everything they could and pretended they were raising them. They actually operationally abandoned them, other than keeping them fed, clothed and sheltered. I didn't see this among the families in the military (my father was of that generation, and if I whined and didn't get what I wanted I was given the equivalent of "shut up and soldier." When my father retired from the Air Force and I ended up in an area with little military influence, I was shocked at what I saw.

Blogger frenchy February 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

Not to mention women should not be judges because they are more likely to decide based upon their feelings and not the facts.

I disagree with her on the men not trying to help women against aggressive men. I think most of us here (I do)advocate that women go armed to deal with men who would do them harm. Sad thing is that few listen and believe so much into the "A kid will find the gun in the house and hurt himself!" or "He'll take the gun away from me!", that nothing will budge them.

It's like they believe that getting attacked is a turn-based strategy game where they get to finally position themselves into being able to kick a guy between the legs...and he will cooperate by going down.

I hope she raises her children with the wisdom she has come upon.

Blogger Lovekraft February 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

I remember asking someone about fifteen years ago how democracy would work to protect existing anglo rights when immigrants from the third world and middle east could just get the right numbers and impose their own laws? Dumb silence.

The post is college-level awareness. Someone is proud to enlighten us even though we here have know about these problems for years and have probably known several people like her who stayed safe behind feminism when it was still a lucrative position.

But she should be welcomed because she at least isn't spouting sjw bs.



Anonymous Anonymous February 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

Fundamentalist Protestants are clearly ignorant rubes who think their pathetically weak understanding of theology and Christian history justify their view of themselves as "real" Christians.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 12:45 PM  

And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage:
I'm missing something unless you mean removing the representative level.

in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you.
We did. They jumped off but demand we still keep treating them like they are on the pedestal while they pretend they can compete in the rat race, worse they mooch and leech. That is why MGTOW.
This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling.
What do you find appalling about perfectly rational behavior. You yourself pointed out a man as head of household will vote to preserve it. With only feral feminists who alternately leech off of or attack men, - ok, I know you FEEL it is wrong - but what is the rational thing for men to do?

One clue as to why Wyoming was the first state to grant suffrage is the women who moved to Wyoming in the 1860's all learned not to act on their emotions (or were eaten by mountain lions, grizzlies, or froze or starved to death during the winter). "The Equality State" doesn't mean it in the sense of the unicorn, but of the state logo - the bucking horse which doesn't care what your gender is. There are women rodeo bull riders, but they are very rare and the standards aren't changed to accommodate them - they don't get to ride a cow. Guns and fuel and electricity help the physical differences.

An old story from an Alice VonHildebrand book talks about a woman who was not capable of changing a tire on her car, but no one was stopping. She made and held up a sign saying "I am NOT a feminist" and was on here way in a few minutes. There is a "help each other" attitude in my area, and there are independent women, but I've not yet run into a feminist, though they do exist here.

Blogger VD February 07, 2016 12:47 PM  


The post is college-level awareness.


Haven't spoken to a college student lately, have you.

Blogger Shimshon February 07, 2016 12:48 PM  

Growing up in the liberal milieu of Los Angeles, I remember being shocked as a child to discover that my mother was against the ERA (she's no dummy, but the most she could articulate for being against it was that she didn't want to be drafted and didn't think women should be treated like men in areas like combat) and was, for a time, a registered Republican (gasp!). Whatever her faults, these discoveries left very good impressions on my young and curious mind.

Blogger Shimshon February 07, 2016 12:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Michael Maier February 07, 2016 12:48 PM  

Yeah, the pedestal stuff is simply delusional. Many woman pedestalize their kids... so that means the entire family except for dad is above... the head of the family....

Yeah, please hush now.

You can honour, love and cherish your wife without putting her on anything resembling a pedestal.

Blogger J.M. February 07, 2016 12:56 PM  

That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world. As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it. We pass on culture, tradition, and history.

You know as much of Catholicism as I do of Astrophysics...nothing, zilch nada, nichts.If you knew as much as you thought you would understand that traditional Catholicism while glorifying the role of mother as a nurturer and integral part of the family, doesn't place the woman above the man, there was no pedestal my lady, you had duties and men had duties and one of our duties as men (something forgotten long time ago in Protestantism) was to not let you speak publicly of things of which you know nothing let alone suffer women "preachers" (Saint Paul)which in most cases are even more heretical than their male counterparts and that's saying something.

I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated.

Again you are partly wrong. Islam's greatest failing and cause of their ills was the rejection of Christ couple with polygamy which has caused a continuous degeneration of their DNA for the last 1000 years. Polygamy only works when there are a lot more women than men (or men die like flies due to constant war). Otherwise you end having to marry your cousin if you are to have a family at all or go invade someone else's country to steal their women. Exercise the first option for a couple of centuries and the results will speak for themselves.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 12:56 PM  

Men, you need to man up and demand your rights. That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you.

Instead of what @1 says, this is rather Evidence 102,002 why you shouldn't listen to women on marriage.

Placing your wife "above you" is a surefire way to lose her attraction to you.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 12:57 PM  

And I've mentioned it before: Wyoming Catholic College in Lander bans cell phones on campus but encourages open carry. Oral Roberts U just required all students to have a fitbit so they can be tracked to see if they exercise enough.

But "democracy" would work if the anglos would actually have enough kids to outvote (and eject) the orcs.

As late as the 1950's - before the sexual revolution and the pill (which invaded Protestant churches and their marriages) - almost all Christian denominations had large families. It was called the "Baby Boom" because it was well more than the 2.1 replacement level. Women only have a limited window of fertility, and it doesn't matter if you have a monarchy, democracy, republic, or anarchy, if humans decide to breed like elves, the orcs will win over time. Tell me a reasonable counter-argument. Japan and parts of Europe are likely to implement some hidden and gentle euthanasia but will be no different than the Eskimos that left their elderly on ice floes when they became too much of a burden.

Blogger Josh February 07, 2016 1:01 PM  

Can we not use a single sentence in the OP as the jumping off point for refighting the Reformation for the 10,000th time?

Anonymous Danby February 07, 2016 1:02 PM  

Well, isn't her Catholic faith special? Not like the real one. Probably not her fault, though. I've heard that nonsense from the pulpit too. Difference is, I stood up in the middle of Mass, told them that what they were promoting was not Catholicism, but witchcraft, and walked out with my family.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 1:04 PM  

The pedestal is not a position of superiority, but a recognition that children come through women so they need special care and protection. Their emotion might make them judge character better or pick up non-verbal signals, but they aren't stronger, smarter, more wise.

Cages, even gilded ones, are kept way off the floor, and often serve mainly to keep the cat out rather than the bird in.

The boobies wanted their freedom. So did the dodos.

The current version with government is not big tent but the big cage with a big door and let any member of the zoo in.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 1:07 PM  

@tz
The pedestal is not a position of superiority, but a recognition that children come through women so they need special care and protection.

Only if you're reading it with that in mind. If you read it straight as it is, it's a prescription for "yes-dear-whatever-you-say-dear".

You don't have to place people "above you" in order to care for them and safeguard them.

Anonymous dissident american February 07, 2016 1:20 PM  

It's a good effort on her part, but she still has a lot to learn.

Anonymous Rolf February 07, 2016 1:23 PM  

@18 @19 It's funny how people confuse something as simple as this. Just because dad works his butt off for his wife and family doesn't mean that they are above him. Maybe they do think as tz said, but because they are sloppy with their expression, they get sloppy with their thinking.

Certainly Dad should listen to mom; that's not the same as placing her above him.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 1:27 PM  

@16, Given the current feminization of the Protestant churches, the Reformation lost. It was mortally wounded in the sexual revolution of the 1960's when it let "just a little bit in".

(no-fault) Divorce and Contraception were made acceptable, the first - where every family court judge is a white knight - destroys men. The second turns women into mere sex toys.

Not that the Catholics fared much better, but they still condemn both in the strongest terms.

You can map the areas where Christendom still exists by the number of Christian two parent families working on large broods - any or all denominations.

Anonymous Rolf February 07, 2016 1:28 PM  

@13 - the biggest problem with polygamy is that it destroys the prospects of all the men that have no chance of marriage and a family, so they are hopeless, literally. They have no future. They are biological dead ends with no stake in the future, so they have no incentive to be productive or think past tomorrow, and their only chance of changing that is sucking up to the tribal big-wigs in hope of gaining enough status in the clan to be offered a chance at a woman. It totally hoses up the whole incentive system.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 1:28 PM  

@The Woman:

"OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys"

Give me a boy of sturdy stock when he is 6 and by the time he hits 13 you won't be able to compete with him either. He will have training equal to or superior to your own and absolute physical superiority.

And he will only keep getting better from there.

"Men, you need to man up and demand your rights."

No. "Demanding rights" is what women do, and why they shouldn't be allowed the vote. Men need to take their rights. That is how they come to earn, and thus deserve them.

"Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal."

These are mutual exclusives. Women also need to be restored to their proper place, not to the pedestal which women constructed to be placed on.

You might even find, in time, that a home is a nicer place to live than a pedestal.

@VD: "Haven't spoken to a college student lately, have you."

Zing!

Anonymous Euro contracter February 07, 2016 1:30 PM  

Off topic: Github is in an SJW death spiral.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2

Read the whole thing, it's full of nuttiness. I don't think a hardcore "social impact team" will get them hockey stick enterprise sales for instance. I'm surprised the VCs are going along with this circus.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner February 07, 2016 1:32 PM  

I disagree with her on the men not trying to help women against aggressive men.

Never interfere with a black beating his mudshark, the mudshark will stab you in the back.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 1:34 PM  

Cages, even gilded ones, are kept way off the floor, and often serve mainly to keep the cat out rather than the bird in.

You keep things safeguarded best by clutching them possessively to your chest. Holding them above your head only puts them in prime position for someone above you to snatch them right out of your hands.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 1:35 PM  

As a woman, I've also struggled with this issue. I can also attest that as a Gen-X female, we were raised to despise men as foolish bullies who'd oppress us if they could.

In general, Baby Boomer women (yes, not all of them), hate men. They taught their daughters to hate men. As girls growing up, we were sold a bill of goods. We were taught to look down on women who were "only" home-makers and to focus on our careers, so we wouldn't be dependent on some man for our food, clothing, and shelter. What a crock.

Fast-forward 30 years. Many of us Gen-X women realize the feminist/sexual revolution didn't do us any favors.

RANT AHEAD: As far as men, they've been shafted beyond belief. I'm ashamed of the way men are treated by the media, by the family courts, by society. It's disgusting, unfair, and can/should result in a correction. (Sadly, when things correct, they tend to over-correct, so women may be in for a tough time going forward.)

About voting, that's a really tough one for me. I've earned the right to vote. I pay a ton of taxes. I have a high IQ. I earn triple what my husband does and unlike Hillary Clinton, think that baking cookies for your family is a wonderful thing. I don't believe in universal suffrage, but I do believe that everyone who has EARNED the right to vote should get it.

I understand why so many men on this forum believe that women shouldn't have the right to vote. I don't agree with it, but when I look at how men have been vilified and mistreated, and how our country is in the crapper due to the influence of feminists, it's easy to see the appeal of denying women the vote.

As women, I believe we have a long way to go in making up for what's been done to men -- white men in particular -- over the past few decades. For starters, as women, we need to earn back the trust of men. We need to stick for the rights of men wherever we can. We need to call out fellow females when they oppress, denigrate, ridicule, or whatever to men. We need to point out the double standards.

I HAVE done this. On forums, where some doofus suggests, "We need more women," and "we need to offer them reduced membership rates," I'm always the first to stand up and say "No! We don't need this. Giving ME a membership for half-price is unfair to the men paying full price."

Anyway, I'll finish this rant with a cheery thought. I believe you will see a natural shift as boomer women lose control of the narrative. It's true that some younger women share the boomer's messed-up views, but not nearly as many.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 07, 2016 1:45 PM  

Washington State has had a Democrat governor for... 20+ years? Something like that. Unsurprisingly, the various government agencies in the state have become baskets cases. Republicans recently recaptured the State Senate, and they just voted to fire the Department of Transportation Secretary, who's been on the job three years an presided over multiple fiascos. You've maybe heard of Big Bertha, the half-billion dollar tunneling machine with no reverse gear that's currently stuck once again trying to dig a tunnel underneath Seattle. But there's also a badly botched toll program on one of the busiest highways in the state, problems with a replacement for one of the busiest bridges in the state, and just overall an abject failure to deal with transportation problems.

By any measures of accountability, she (yes, the Secretary was a woman) failed miserably in running her department. Of course the firing is party politics, but it's also perfectly justified. Overdue, really.

Women are responding by claiming it's 'male politics' to appoint a woman to a troubled agency then make her the scapegoat and fire her.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 1:46 PM  

@GenXGal

As a woman[...]

Ya don't say.

In general, Baby Boomer women (yes, not all of them), hate men.

It always shows up as a disdain for hubby and constant denigration of him in front of others, for those who haven't recognized it yet.

I don't believe in universal suffrage, but I do believe that everyone who has EARNED the right to vote should get it.

The problem is not "who has the higher IQ" or "who earned/deserved it", but figuring out who will probably make the best decisions.

The vast majority of women are very susceptible to emotional appeals in every form. This is the problem we face.

I believe you will see a natural shift as boomer women lose control of the narrative. It's true that some younger women share the boomer's messed-up views, but not nearly as many.

Hence the "can't wait for boomers to die out" mentality amongst many.

Although, really, we need to, and are, taking back the narrative rather than waiting to inherit.

Anonymous BGKB February 07, 2016 1:47 PM  

Japan and parts of Europe are likely to implement some hidden and gentle euthanasia

UK's Liverpool Care Plan is not,throw money away on orcs but let WWII vets die because they will say that if they could change things they would have put down their rifles and picked up a german phrase book http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11779213/New-death-guidelines-worse-than-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.html

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 1:59 PM  

@Student in Blue.

The problem is not "who has the higher IQ" or "who earned/deserved it", but figuring out who will probably make the best decisions.

This is true. But don't you think that there's a very strong correlation here? Meaning that those with a high IQ who also have a lot of "skin in the game," would also be statistically much more likely to make better decisions? If you don't believe this is the case, what criteria would you use? (I'm honestly curious, BTW, not being snarky here.)

The vast majority of women are very susceptible to emotional appeals in every form. This is the problem we face.
Sadly, I agree, which is why I struggle with the issue. A society ruled by facts is much better than one ruled by emotions. My personality type is an INTJ, so I have a hard time understanding why so many people rule their lives by emotions alone. Perhaps this is why I'm so conflicted about this issue. But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too. This is where it gets complicated.

Hence the "can't wait for boomers to die out" mentality amongst many...Although, really, we need to, and are, taking back the narrative rather than waiting to inherit.
I agree. We can't wait. But I do believe we're seeing some signs of this shifting. For example, Boomer women LOVE Hillary Clinton, but women of other generations aren't nearly as infatutuated.

Blogger Josh February 07, 2016 2:00 PM  

I don't believe in universal suffrage, but I do believe that everyone who has EARNED the right to vote should get it.

What's your criteria for earning the right to vote?

Blogger The Observer February 07, 2016 2:08 PM  

I don't believe in universal suffrage, but I do believe that everyone who has EARNED the right to vote should get it.

I don't believe in voting at all (at least, for anyone who isn't of the aristocracy), but I will make a point:

I've seen this crop up time and again: "If only a woman could perform at the same physical level as a man, we should let her into combat."

"If a woman could perform identically to a man, we should let her into X."

No. Like Student in Blue pointed out, earn or deserve has got nothing to do with it. In the case of the hypothetical Amazon soldier, you put her in a combat squad with some guys, and their dynamics change. They stop working together as well as they did, and start trying to chase pussy. If she's wounded and screaming in pain, their reaction is going to be very different as opposed to one of their male buddies doing the same. If she's captured and forcibly raped with the video posted on the internet, what do you think is going to happen?

No special snowflaking, because if one gets it, the rest start complaining that "itzzz unfaaaair" and they should get it too.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett February 07, 2016 2:09 PM  

@16

You tell me? @1 is probably the asshole you should go talk to, not the rest of us dealing with his shitstorm, both sides.

BTW, you're all going to Hell.

Blogger Nick S February 07, 2016 2:10 PM  

This seems like a fairly narrow topic on it's face, but it touches nearly everything. It's refreshing to see women who understand it's not, by necessity, grounded in a misogynistic perspective.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett February 07, 2016 2:13 PM  

@17 Mass shouldn't take more than 15 mins. Anything longer and the Priest demonstrates he is a manifest heretic.

Anonymous Stickwick February 07, 2016 2:14 PM  

Lovekraft: The post is college-level awareness...

Welcome to planet Earth, friend. You planning to stay here long? If so, you'll find that the many of our college students suffer from something called "apoplexy" or "triggering" if they even encounter such ideas. The rest would dismiss them as "outdated" or "misogynistic" about one paragraph in.

J.M.: You know as much of Catholicism as I do of Astrophysics...nothing, zilch nada, nichts.

I dunno if it's just a coincidence that you mentioned astrophysics or if you think I wrote this piece. In any case, I didn't write it.

Blogger BunE22 February 07, 2016 2:20 PM  

IMO a woman being on a pedestal is only for the virtuous woman, and there are few virtuous women today.

It's purpose is not to place women above men, it's to place those women above the unvirtuous women.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 2:26 PM  

@Josh. What's your criteria for earning the right to vote?
For starters, paying taxes (and plenty of them). If you're paying the country's bills, you should have a say in how that money is spent. Right now, too much is decided by those who don't pay. IMO, this is a big problem. Consider this...If the takers (those on welfare) did not have the right to vote, this discussion of voting rights by gender would not be necessary. If you look at voting patterns, and removed all votes by people on the dole, our last few elections would look completely different.

@The Observer. "If a woman could perform identically to a man, we should let her into X." The problem, IMO, with your example is that women CAN'T perform identically to a man in the scenario you described. I am not advocating for equality of results. I am advocating for equality of opportunity. If a woman can't cut it, she doesn't belong there, period. Similarly, if a woman cannot demonstrate she is capable of making an informed decision, she should not have the right to vote. But I also think this goes the same for a man.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 2:27 PM  

@GenXGal
This is true. But don't you think that there's a very strong correlation here? Meaning that those with a high IQ who also have a lot of "skin in the game," would also be statistically much more likely to make better decisions? If you don't believe this is the case, what criteria would you use? (I'm honestly curious, BTW, not being snarky here.)

A correlation, but not a strong correlation. IQ does not account for maturity and selflessness. It doesn't even account for having a long time preference. Being able to think faster doesn't mean you have incentives to not screw over your fellow man.
In addition, IQ does not account for susceptibility of emotions.

In a sense, IQ is like the horsepower of an engine, emotional susceptibility is the car tending to list off to the side while driving, time preference is planning out what roads you're going to take ahead of time, and maturity/morality/selflessness is how many laws are you going to break driving to your destination.

A better criteria than IQ is... say, a landowner. Someone who has a stake in the ground, where they're at. They're the ones with incentives not to screw themselves over. Plus, really dumb people are wasteful with their money so they essentially self-select themselves out of the pool.

My personality type is an INTJ, so I have a hard time understanding why so many people rule their lives by emotions alone. Perhaps this is why I'm so conflicted about this issue.

Despite being INTJ, you are still very much influenced by your emotions even if you aren't cognizant of it. Even then, people aren't 100% logic-ruled or 100% emotion-ruled, but a mixture of the two.

Making decisions by emotion isn't even a bad thing -- the only danger is when you are not cognizant of doing so, and wind up rationalizing post hoc why you did what you did. This leads to dangerous internal inconsistencies.

But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too. This is where it gets complicated.

There's a reason why they're called pussies.

Blogger Positive Dennis February 07, 2016 2:27 PM  

I believe when the author talks about catholic teaching it is referring to the scripture that says a man must love his wife as Christ loved the church. Christ died for his church. This same scripture says the wife is to obey the husband.

Blogger VD February 07, 2016 2:35 PM  

My personality type is an INTJ, so I have a hard time understanding why so many people rule their lives by emotions alone. Perhaps this is why I'm so conflicted about this issue. But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too. This is where it gets complicated.

It's not complicated at all. Your entire case for women retaining the right to vote is based on your feelings about you. Being a woman, you cannot see how solipsistic you are. How are you going to put your own interests aside in favor of the nation's interests when you can't even do it in so simple a matter as this?

It's not IQ that is relevant. It is the ability and willingness to ignore one's personal interests in favor of the nation. Women can't do that; they are wired to protect themselves and their children at all costs. Including the nation and even civilization itself.

She who would have civilization must lose her vote to gain it.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster February 07, 2016 2:40 PM  

"RANT AHEAD: As far as men, they've been shafted beyond belief."

Nope. Thanks to feminists, we can now pick up as many women as we want for one-night stands, and not be expected to marry them in the morning. Feminism, at least until the recent 'rape culture!' fad, has been great for men.

It's the women who have been butt-fucked with a strapon by fat, ugly, cat-lady feminists. They're now told that being a fat, ugly cat-lady is the feminine ideal, and anyone who isn't a fat, ugly cat-lady by their forties is a failure. Thanks to feminism, women are now expected to make do with a life of perpetual one-night stands and a mind-numbing job in 'Human Resources' (dumping ground for most of the women companies are forced to hire to meet sex quotas) when they would prefer to have a husband and family.

The simple truth is this: feminists hate women--particularly the pretty, feminine women who got the men they should have had--far, far more than they hate men. Until you understand that, you won't understand why they're supporting mass immigration of men who want little more than to rape pretty, feminine women, while screaming like harpies about their fake 'rape culture' in universities.

Feminists hate women. Men are just another tool to fuck them over.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 2:40 PM  

Some food for thought...Many of you advocate changing the system so only men can vote. As I've said above, I understand why you would say this. But here's something to ponder...

Look at the broader demographic picture. Take a recent election and splice and dice it.

Remove women. What did the election-results look like?
Remove blacks. What did the election-results look like?
Remove hispanics. What did the election-results look like?
Remove "refugees" and the children of refugees. What did the election-results look like?
Remove those on welfare. What did the election-results look like?

Obviously, the answer to this is complicated, but I want you to consider what tweaks, based on the demographic groups listed above, would have had the most profound impact on our elections? I submit that eliminating women wouldn't have offered the most improvement.

Now, if you remove those on welfare, or those who simply don't have the IQ to cut it in a civilized society, you're looking at a very different group of voters, gender-differences aside.

Blogger CM February 07, 2016 2:45 PM  

GenX -

But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too. This is where it gets complicated.

The over-emotional male is an outlier the same way the over-rational female is.

With women in the voting pool + over-emotional men, we out-vote men.

With just men, the rational out vote the emotional.

On the INT -

I am INTP (newly discovered and embraced P), and also don't understand the reliance on emotion. But as a woman, I am still susceptible to emotions. Often times, I'm unaware of what those feelings are or how to express them, but I still feel them.

Other than this woman's "above men" comment, not only has she made a good case for dis-enfranchising women but she also validates our emotional wiring.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 2:46 PM  

@GenXGal
I submit that eliminating women wouldn't have offered the most improvement.

The argument wasn't that "everything will be fixed if we remove female suffrage", but rather that removing female suffrage is a positive thing.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 2:47 PM  

Go make a sammich

Anonymous Susan February 07, 2016 2:50 PM  

The last place that an intelligent woman wants to be is on some pedestal. We know that when men do this, it only gives the nasty feminists the chance to kick a man's teeth down his throat.

Josh,

IIRC from previous postings regarding women's suffrage, haven't the commenters in general floated the notion of going back to the taxpayers/landowners only getting the right to vote? Seems to me, that a woman who pays as much taxes as the guest OP says she does, indeed has earned a right to vote. I have no problems with giving up a right to vote. Especially if it helps deny the crazies out there in their continued destructive tendencies.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 2:52 PM  

IIRC from previous postings regarding women's suffrage, haven't the commenters in general floated the notion of going back to the taxpayers/landowners only getting the right to vote?

I think there was a part in there about "one vote per household" as well. And possibly excluding anyone receiving money from the government from voting too.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 2:53 PM  

@VD. It's not complicated at all. Your entire case for women retaining the right to vote is based on your feelings about you.
I might be more receptive to the idea if I were confident that the vote wouldn't be given to those dumber, and more emotional than I am, simply because of their gender. Now, if we were to return to a system where only European, male land-owners could vote, you might be surprised to see me sign on for that. But as of right now, you're talking about denying women the vote while retaining rights for those who aren't smart enough, or productive enough, to cut it in a civilized society. To me, this defies logic.

@Satan's Hampster. It's the women who have been butt-fucked with a strapon by fat, ugly, cat-lady feminists. Yes, all you say is quite true. But honorable men have been shafted big-time. It's true that feminism has benefited guys who just want quickie-sex with ho-bags. But honorable men who want a family and care for the future of our society have been hurt the most, along with honorable women.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 2:55 PM  

This is why women shouldn't vote...Women ruin everything.

Exhibit A is this thread.

Exhibit B-Z is all the other times this subject come up.

Vox explained it already but you don't want to think because you are reacting to how you feel.

Blogger The Observer February 07, 2016 2:55 PM  

The problem, IMO, with your example is that women CAN'T perform identically to a man in the scenario you described. I am not advocating for equality of results. I am advocating for equality of opportunity. If a woman can't cut it, she doesn't belong there, period. Similarly, if a woman cannot demonstrate she is capable of making an informed decision, she should not have the right to vote. But I also think this goes the same for a man.

And you missed the point completely, which was even *if* equal competence could be achieved, structural reasons mean that the end result is always ruined in time. The injection of a woman into a male-centric space (and probably vice-versa) results in existing dynamics being warped.

Women in the military destroys male dynamics. Similarly, women in a previously male-staffed workplace destroys the dynamics amidst the existing men.

Inject a guy into ladies' gab circle, and watch the dynamics shift immediately. Earned or deserve has nothing to do with it, it's who you are.

By the by, there is no practical difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results, for the first always devolves into the latter.

Blogger BunE22 February 07, 2016 3:00 PM  

I can't believe that a multiple-baby daddy has the country's interests as a priority over a married stay at home mom who owns a home with her husband. I doubt I can be be convinced a SJW male is a better voter. What about the cucks? They can vote because they're male?

This is why I can't get behind the women should lose the vote movement. I do think it should go back to only people that have skin in the game, such as land owners or at the very least those that work and pay taxes. If my own daughters never own land or pay taxes they shouldn't be able to vote, but that would mean some men can't vote either. I'm okay with that, are you?

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 3:01 PM  

@GenXGal

Higher IQ != better decisions.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 07, 2016 3:02 PM  

Wait I thought the pedestal was so we could look up their skirts.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 3:02 PM  

You are all special snowflakes....but you're still a snowflake.

Anonymous JI February 07, 2016 3:06 PM  

"And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: ..."
This is something Muslems should truly fear.

Blogger Student in Blue February 07, 2016 3:11 PM  

@BunE22
I can't believe that a multiple-baby daddy has the country's interests as a priority over a married stay at home mom who owns a home with her husband. I doubt I can be be convinced a SJW male is a better voter. What about the cucks? They can vote because they're male?

These comparisons are stupid because your vote is not being "given" to someone else. All those people already have votes.

You're probably not familiar with Team Woman either.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 3:12 PM  

Every time this subject comes up, I want to jump in and argue. Then I read the comments, see some good points, and just as I begin to acknowledge some points.....I get hit with a point of clarity that just sets me back on my heels.


The original voters were landowners for - as has been pointed out - their commitment to THEIR interests. Voting in the Nation's interests apply to Federal votes, but State votes apply to more personal, direct interests. GenXGal put her Nation's interests first by volunteering to serve it directly. Paying taxes however is the cost of living here, it confers no special right in my opinion. Serving might be a consideration, being a landowner (not by inheritance), starting and building a business might also be one. I don't think men 'earn' voting rights by reason of birth either.

If women are going to learn to trust men, they are going to have to earn it....it too is not a birth-right.

Not all women have the benefit of a man taking care of them. There are times when we have to stand alone and still survive. Part of that is education and experience.

VD wants us to surrender to obtain civilization, what I see is a raging horde that far outnumbers those that would provide that civilization. Trusting that Custer would protect me as he trots off to Little Big Horn is not a rational choice....

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 3:16 PM  

Once again Vox demonstrates his talent.

He proclaims for his next trick he will make rabbits appear and they will dance on one leg.

Minutes later he is surrounded by dancing rabbits hopping around on one leg proclaiming how different and special they are.

Blogger Billy February 07, 2016 3:17 PM  

Hence the "can't wait for boomers to die out" mentality amongst many." I think the behaviors of the boomers has been horrific. But at I other times I think we're falling right into the planed trap of pitting the generations against each other. It seems at times the baby boomers have pulled into number one over the jews in who's responsible for the downfall.

Blogger Billy February 07, 2016 3:19 PM  

Great post by the way, one you'd never expect to actually hear coming from a woman.

Blogger SciVo February 07, 2016 3:20 PM  

GenXGal @32: But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too.

Men have a 2:1 ratio of T:F (in MBTI terms), while for women it's the reverse. But net taxpayer and/or landowner might work as well.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 3:20 PM  

@BunE22. I can't believe that a multiple-baby daddy has the country's interests as a priority over a married stay at home mom who owns a home with her husband. I doubt I can be be convinced a SJW male is a better voter. What about the cucks? They can vote because they're male? This is why I can't get behind the women should lose the vote movement.
This perfectly explains my concerns about determining voting-rights by gender alone.

@Allyn71. Vox explained it already but you don't want to think because you are reacting to how you feel. No. Actually, I want to think about it, which is why I'm engaging in this discussion. I want the best for our country and fully realize that the system we have right now isn't working. I'm just not sure that denying women the right to vote is the most logical path to improvement.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 3:25 PM  

I think the point about women being emotional is not the issue (nor relied on by many here), it is that we ACT while operating under those emotions. Men feel events emotionally also, but the argument is that they stop, get a grip, then act. I think that is both an over-simplification and self-serving response. It might be true for a minority of men, but never for a majority....ok, maybe it applied to Sparta.

Blogger bob k. mando February 07, 2016 3:26 PM  

28. GenXGal February 07, 2016 1:35 PM
and how our country is in the crapper due to the influence of feminists



it's not simply the feminists.

it's the feminine outlook on life, where you expect to be taken care of by the village.

only, now that you have the franchise, you are also the village headman. so why shouldn't you vote yourself ( decide ) to take the resources of the men for yourself?

which is exactly why women, across the board, are far more liberal and 'social program' minded than men.

it's not that men do not have an altruistic nature. most do.

but for the altruistic man, he must balance his altruism against the harm this will cost to his family.

cost / benefit analysis.

there is no cost / benefit analysis when a woman analyzes this ( unless she is married, with children ... and often not even then ) because there is no 'cost' to her and all benefit.



10. Shimshon February 07, 2016 12:48 PM
it was that she didn't want to be drafted and didn't think women should be treated like men in areas like combat



this has been a primary argument against Feminism / ERA since the 19th Century.

the great mistake of the anti-Feminists being, of course, that the Feminists would actually have the *integrity* to demand REAL equality. rather than the picking and choosing that they really do.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 3:26 PM  

@allyn71 Minutes later he is surrounded by dancing rabbits hopping around on one leg proclaiming how different and special they are.

I'm assuming this is directed at me. I've read the book you're referring to. I am no rabbit. By virtually every criteria oulined in the book, I'm quite K-selected. Now, if pointing at me and screeching, "RAAAABITTT!" is the best you can do, I'm embarrassed on your behalf. I thought we were having an interesting, intelligent debate here. No?

Anonymous Satan's Hamster February 07, 2016 3:30 PM  

@BunE22: "I can't believe that a multiple-baby daddy has the country's interests as a priority over a married stay at home mom who owns a home with her husband."

Which one is more likely to support mass importation of Orcish Rape Culture? The man who doesn't want the competition, or the woman who can only think of the poor wittle (forty-year-old) rapefugee children?

Personally, I think democracy is doomed, because it makes no sense in a post-industrial world. I think we're far more likely to return to small, proprietary states with minimal powers beyond defence and courts, as production becomes localized and centralization becomes a liability.

But it's not hard to see that most of the West's problems began around the time we started letting women and idiots vote. And it's no surprise that many socialists supported mass suffrage, because they could see it would inevitably lead to socialism.

@GenXGal: "But honorable men who want a family and care for the future of our society have been hurt the most, along with honorable women."

I thought about mentioning that, because it's clearly true, but I suspect they're vastly outweighed by the men who are happy with perpetual one-night stands and not having to pay for kids. Besides, they can always move somewhere where women understand that feminism is just a religion for fat, ugly, cat-ladies who hate them.

@The Observer: "Women in the military destroys male dynamics. Similarly, women in a previously male-staffed workplace destroys the dynamics amidst the existing men."

I've been pointing this out for years to people who say 'yes, women are weaker than men, but the few women who are as good at soldiering as men should be allowed in the military!' As soon as you bring one woman into a tough, all-male environment, you need an entire infrastructure to handle women. That reduces the effectiveness of the military by far more than one super-competent woman could benefit it.

The problem is that many Western militaries is seen as another entitlement program, and judged on whether women are given what they're 'entitled' to, rather than on its effectiveness as a fighting force. Mostly because they haven't had to fight a real war in decades; the moment they do, 'women in the military' will vanish overnight (and not just because many of those women will run away).

Blogger SciVo February 07, 2016 3:31 PM  

GenXGal @45: Look at the broader demographic picture. Take a recent election and splice and dice it.

You can actually do that for race.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 3:31 PM  

....I feel that is both an over-simplification and self-serving response. It might be true for a minority of men, but never for a majority...

I fixed it for you

Blogger bob k. mando February 07, 2016 3:33 PM  

65. GenXGal February 07, 2016 3:20 PM
This perfectly explains my concerns about determining voting-rights by gender alone.



you understand bell curves, yes?

you understand that there are approx as many 80iq voters as there are 120iq voters, yes?

acknowledging that "intelligence" is no marker for integrity or wisdom, do you REALLY think that it's a good idea for a society to permit voters 20 pts BELOW the average IQ to vote against those who have iqs 20 pts above the average?

and consider, universal suffrage is a goal of Marx, not the Founding Fathers.

universal "male" suffrage wasn't practiced by the Founders. specifics varied from state to state but originally <10% of the population had the franchise.

Blogger VD February 07, 2016 3:33 PM  

I might be more receptive to the idea if I were confident that the vote wouldn't be given to those dumber, and more emotional than I am, simply because of their gender. Now, if we were to return to a system where only European, male land-owners could vote, you might be surprised to see me sign on for that. But as of right now, you're talking about denying women the vote while retaining rights for those who aren't smart enough, or productive enough, to cut it in a civilized society. To me, this defies logic.

It doesn't defy logic. It is simply logic that you can't follow. It is game theory.

The vote won't be given to anyone. The vote is being further restricted. You are too focused on yourself to grasp that in losing your sex-based vote, you will cancel out the vote of nX more irrational, emotional voters. This is considerably more power than you currently have. It's not about there being less rational, less emotional men than you still being able to vote; you are not the lowest acceptable denominator.

Keep in mind that I left a place where I had the vote to live in a place where I did not because I felt that it offered me more freedom. So, this is not an entirely hypothetical exercise; I lived the very action that you are theoretically rejecting.

Blogger bob k. mando February 07, 2016 3:36 PM  

once you remember that, by definition, approximately half the population is BELOW AVERAGE, you run smack up against the realization of just how incredibly stupid an idea Universal Suffrage is.

Blogger The Kurgan February 07, 2016 3:37 PM  

Um, no. I have no idea where she takes her ideas from. The catholic teaching is simply that which is found in the bible. A man is supposed to be willing to be crucified for his wife. She of course has to be a deserving wife, (with all that entails biblically) but what man would disagree with the this?

Blogger SciVo February 07, 2016 3:37 PM  

Satan's Hamster @69: But it's not hard to see that most of the West's problems began around the time we started letting women and idiots vote. And it's no surprise that many socialists supported mass suffrage, because they could see it would inevitably lead to socialism.

As a counterexample, E. Belfort Bax -- who wrote The Fraud of Feminism over a century ago -- was a British Socialist, and also a strident opponent of women's suffrage. He saw clearly how female solipsism would combine with male pussy worship to tilt our entire system of government against men. They should've listened.

Blogger intuitivereason February 07, 2016 3:38 PM  

The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism

Well, no, I don't believe this will prove true. Although like with any change, a great deal of ascribed dissatisfaction with the current arrangement will be required.

It's not like despotism and representative democracy are the only forms of government conceivable.

Blogger The Kurgan February 07, 2016 3:40 PM  

"Haven't spoken to a college student lately, have you."

Bwhahahhahha

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 3:42 PM  

Allyn71: actually, it wasn't 'feel'...I THINK there is sufficient demographic evidence for it.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 3:46 PM  

" 'Cause I gonna make you see
There's nobody else here
No one like me
I'm special so special
I gotta have some of your attention give it to me"

Anonymous Hazel February 07, 2016 3:49 PM  

Vox, would you be up for writing a post on your reasoning for direct democracy? I've seen you mention it as your ideal a few times but I've been reading for at number of years now and have yet to see a more detailed explanation.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 3:51 PM  

BTW, I am perfectly happy (emotionally) to change the voting right to those that 1) put the Nation first in national elections, 2) put their interests first in local elections, 3) is based on an earned right rather than birthright.

Blogger CM February 07, 2016 3:51 PM  

I think the point about women being emotional is not the issue (nor relied on by many here), it is that we ACT while operating under those emotions.

Yes... in general.

SciVo mentions the T:F ratio among men.

Women are more F than T. T women are still less likely to act on their emotion even though they are women than an F woman would.

I am leaning towards still more often than T men, though. But that is based on my experience. My hormones play a big role in how easily I'm swayed by emotions.

Still, I'm agreeing with VD and OP on this even if special women exist (only 20% of women are Ts. Though about 25% of men are Fs.http://www.slayerment.com/files/slayerment/images/mbti-mf.png)

Anonymous GreyS February 07, 2016 3:56 PM  

It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.

Feminists like to say how men cause wars and if women were in charge there would be no wars.

Seems to me that bigger, financially needy governments cause wars and these sorts of governments grew all over the world after women gained the vote.

Blogger Lovekraft February 07, 2016 4:09 PM  

college-student I was referring to was this woman, not Vox.

The part about marriage that stands out in the Bible is that a woman must obey her husband, and the husband defers to God's supreme authority. When the man is seen by his wife as breaking his covenant with God, then she may rebel.

Dalrock talked of this at length on his blog.

Blogger The Observer February 07, 2016 4:10 PM  

Feminists like to say how men cause wars and if women were in charge there would be no wars.

Even before democracy, queens proportionally started more wars than kings did.

Blogger Blaster February 07, 2016 4:14 PM  

Vote: Why should women not vote? I thought about this for years. I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men. However, that does not outweigh one important limitation: emotion. This is what you brought up in your post. Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions

I don't think this is a reasonable grounds for denying voting rights. I have only ever seen three reasonable arguments for denying female suffrage.

(1) Western Civilization is best organized around a nuclear family. Votes cast by family helps ensure votes put the family ahead of the individual. This argument isn't strictly about male vs female, and in theory you could have a female head of household be the designated voter. But in a patriarchy, of course, the father would be the head.

(2) Mismatch of rights and responsibilities. Citizenship carries rights, but also responsibilities. Some of them are more explicit than others, but men bear more risk and responsibility for society than women. An explicit example is draft registration. A less explicit example would be the risk of death at the hands of an foreign invader.

(3) As a group, they consistently vote for fiscally unrealistic policies of generous social welfare and unlimited compassion. This is really the only one that comes close to "votes emotionally," but I'm not sure it's necessarily irrational or emotional, so much as it is short-sighted, selfish, and unprincipled. In other words, as a group, women tend to be unwilling to make hard-but-necessary decisions. In general, I find this last reason to be the least compelling of them all, but can't deny there's evidence suggesting that en masse, women basically always vote for bigger government and more handouts for women.

Taken by themselves, I don't think any one of these arguments is good enough to justify denying female citizens voting rights. But combining all three, it's quite reasonable to me that a state would find it expedient and valuable to restrict female suffrage.

Blogger Blaster February 07, 2016 4:14 PM  

but men bear more risk and responsibility for society

That should probably say "state" rather than "society."

Anonymous Littlest Hellhound February 07, 2016 4:19 PM  

@Bob The reason why universal suffrage is a good idea is because the 21st century Western state is too large and unwieldy to dissolve, except by revolution (which typically increases long-term social chaos). If citizens cannot readily revise the social contract between themselves and the state, they have no incentive to maintain that contract except through their vote.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 4:20 PM  

"That should probably say "state" rather than "society." "

It remains true for a village protected by a volunteer militia.

Blogger GracieLou February 07, 2016 4:26 PM  

I found the old anti-suffragette pamphlets pretty convincing and absolutely every negative consequence they predicted came to pass. BTW most anti-suffragettes were women.

The other day husband and I were watching football with the neighbors. I said, "what's the significance of the stickers on the helmets?" The men explained that they are rewards for excellent plays. The wife said, "Well that's not right! Doesn't it make the players with less stickers feel bad?" Hopefully. But the thing is this woman, even though she works in social services, is not a liberal. She grew up on a farm and is otherwise solid. But I'm sure she's horrified by Trump, because is it really that important to make America great again? Can't we give all the world a trophy? It got me thinking maybe it's the mommy/grandma vote to which the cuckservatives pander.

Blogger The Kurgan February 07, 2016 4:28 PM  

Ha! VD can't vote in Italy!
So by feminist logic he's oppressed by my patriarchal nationality. #nationalistpatriarchyforthewin

Blogger ray February 07, 2016 4:28 PM  

"And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage"


LOL. Oh, yeah, it's not that Demonocracy, female suffrage, and The Almighty People are an utter failure and corruption, it's that the world hasn't tried YOUR version of them. I love it.

Desptie being saddled with Female Totalitarianism, I mean suffrage, from before they were born, the Boomers gave Gen X and succeeding Failure Generations all the tools to succeed, and they rolled onto their knees for the Gynarchy and assumed the position. But you look really cool in those black clothes and tats while you're getting reamed!

Blogger J.M. February 07, 2016 4:29 PM  

38. Stickwick

No I was not referring to you. Are you Astrophysicist?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 07, 2016 4:31 PM  

GenXGal's viewpoint is the same as celebrities who have guns but don't want any non celebrities to have them.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare February 07, 2016 4:32 PM  

That last paragraph...the folks who faint over your opinions regarding female suffrage really don't grasp that point. And it's a good one. You aren't arguing for something you haven't experienced...you're actually (in a sense) arguing *from experience*!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 07, 2016 4:35 PM  

college-student I was referring to was this woman, not Vox.

The part about marriage that stands out in the Bible is that a woman must obey her husband, and the husband defers to God's supreme authority. When the man is seen by his wife as breaking his covenant with God, then she may rebel.

Dalrock talked of this at length on his blog.


Given permission to rebel or may rebel as a result of seeing the husband violating the covenant with God?

Anonymous BGKB February 07, 2016 4:36 PM  

My argument against gay marriage is that feminists have so destroyed marriage only gay gold diggers would want it. I would be divorced multiple times and paying gay alimony if it was legal but the biggest breakup cost I ever had was buying a new computer after I took a hammer to the hard drive of my old one, because of what I found on it. Every hospital in the nation has at least one surgeon whose wife divorced him because she could enjoy 1/2 his assets/wages better without his schedule.

What's your criteria for earning the right to vote?

That you pay more in taxes than you receive in govt benefits, to include all govt workers except military, for at least 5 years of your life. Also a basic math test should be doable with computer voting machines, at the very least math at the balancing budget level.

But I know plenty of men who are overly ruled by emotions, too. This is where it gets complicated

Stop hanging out with gay men. It will lead to you criticizing your husband on how he dresses.

once you remember that, by definition, approximately half the population is BELOW AVERAGE

But HilLIARy said she would close all the schools that didn't perform above average:
"“I wouldn’t keep any school open that wasn’t doing a better-than-average job.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cf-yZmhT6E

Anonymous Adam February 07, 2016 4:36 PM  

#20: It's a good effort on her part, but she still has a lot to learn.

If you compare her to a lot of readers here, then yes. But if you compare her to women in general she is miles in front of them. She's in another fricking world as far as I'm concerned based on the vast majority of women that I've ever come in contact with.

And I think that that is the main point.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr February 07, 2016 4:44 PM  

As an engineer, I take a very pragmatic view.

When the United States was founded, the vote was restricted to free men over the age of 21, with a property requirement that disqualified about 30% of men otherwise qualified. This produced first-class leaders who could found the Republic.

Then the property restriction was lifted. The result was leaders like Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis. Good men, but not as adept as their predecessors.

THEN we let women vote. Which produced Woodrow Wilson and FDR...the first of the demi-fascist Presidents.

Note the sharp drop in quality of results correlating with women's suffrage. It makes a strong case against letting women vote.

Kindly note this does NOT necessarily disqualify women from holding elective office, merely from voting for those offices.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 4:51 PM  

@94 J.M.: "Are you Astrophysicist?"

She is.

Anonymous johnc February 07, 2016 4:52 PM  

I could definitely understand how a woman who pays an awful lot in taxes would be reluctant to give up a voice in how that money is spent. But the answer to that is obvious: women shouldn't be in the workforce.

Blogger CM February 07, 2016 4:56 PM  

Then the property restriction was lifted. The result was leaders like Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis. Good men, but not as adept as their predecessors.

Not to derail into an economic discussion...

Weren't the policies that the original Republicans advocate more beneficial to the very wealthy that led to monopolies? Why would people who own nothing vote for that as opposed to people that have property?

Or did the have-nots benefit from monopolies and out voted the merchant class that was hurt by it?

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 4:57 PM  

A person may make an awful lot of money without ever getting anywhere near being in the workforce.

Blogger Neanderserk February 07, 2016 5:03 PM  

Not letting women vote is just as bad as raping them, because it prevents them from voting for rape.

Consent is only irrevocable when given at the ballot booth.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 5:15 PM  

Non-landed didn't give themselves the right to vote
Women didn't give themselves the right to vote
A majority of men (given: those actually voting) voted against their interests - as suggested by VD....suggesting
that absent women voting, men would still vote against their, and the nation's interests.

"Women should not be in the workforce"....and the women that have no men to support them can live on the street? or suffer under the first fool with a paycheck?

Blogger Neanderserk February 07, 2016 5:26 PM  

The state will subsidize the removal of a man's genitals or the removal of a woman's unborn child but draws the line at a woman contracting away her autonomy to a man.

All America needs to do to remove the consent of the governed and abrogate the USG is get really drunk on the 4th of July.

Alternatively, we could file for a no-fault divorce and take half the Fed's stuff.

Anonymous Athor Pel February 07, 2016 5:31 PM  

"68. GenXGal February 07, 2016 3:26 PM
... I thought we were having an interesting, intelligent debate here. No?
"



Human civilization is built on the family. The family is the smallest polity. A family is not a democracy. It has a head, the father, the husband. It cannot operate successfully any other way. An integral part of a husband and father's responsibilities is dealing with the world outside the family. And a part of that is deciding how the relationship to the outside world will be ordered. And that's called goverment. As a woman, as a wife, that's not your job, not your responsibility. Your job is to help your husband.

That you want to go over the head of your husband is called rebellion.

I don't care how you feel about the subject. Youre opinion means exactly zero to actually arriving at a solution in our lifetimes. Therefore you should shut up and listen. Really, shut up, stop emoting all over your keyboard and read more and type much much less.

Go make your husband a sandwich. He needs the calories and not you telling him what to do. If you don't trust him to figure anything out or do the right thing then why did you marry him?

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 5:31 PM  

The distaff sex.

If women had not always been a major part of the workforce, before the 20th century most men would have been going out to work naked.

Women only became a major part of the "the workforce(tm)" when they were relieved of their role in the workforce by technological advances such as the power loom and the washing machine.

The 50's was not a traditional culture. It was the most radical and anomalous culture in human history. A culmination of great cataclysm that turned the world inside out and upside down.

"...and the women that have no men to support them can live on the street?"

The age of consent was raised above the biologically obvious and traditional value to try to deal with that problem. Feminist consent theory only got added on post hoc.

If women are living on the street, ban the one way remaining to them to earn a living.

Anonymous BGKB February 07, 2016 5:35 PM  

"Women should not be in the workforce"....

Up until 1913 Americans kept 100% of their earnings.

Despite this , America still had: schools, colleges, roads, railroads, streets, the army , Navy & Marine Corps. The big difference now is taxes go to pay the elite looters, welfare recipients, & we stopped winning wars. If you believe in equality the schools where much better then, & blacks throwing rocks off of bridges didn't cause train derailments like last year in Philly.

Blogger Quadko February 07, 2016 5:41 PM  

Feminism: turning girls into man-boys. Drones in the bowels of corporate western culture. Good job, Gloria!

Blogger Neanderserk February 07, 2016 5:45 PM  

Not only should women vote, they should have a completely separate government so they can enforce whatever they decide themselves.

Men shouldn't tell women what to do, and women shouldn't tell men what to do. End the oppression now. Can you see the violence inherent in the system?

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 5:47 PM  

"Up until 1913 Americans kept 100% of their earnings."

As most of them did after 1913. It was the whisky tax that largely funded the federal government at the time. It was prohibition that destroyed that source of tax revenue.

Noooow, where did prohibition come from?

Blogger Timmy3 February 07, 2016 5:47 PM  

Direct democracy is almost achieved. Many blue states will insist their delegates vote with the majority. Congress voted to give more power to the Executive. Whoever owns the judges will tailor the Constitution. We're screwed.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 5:50 PM  

"Feminism: turning girls into man-boys. Drones in the bowels of corporate western culture."

To be fair, it does so for men as well. Although the men may be a bit more girly than the girls.

Blogger bob k. mando February 07, 2016 6:07 PM  

106. Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 5:15 PM
"Women should not be in the workforce"



this is another lie that comes directly from Feminists.

women have NEVER not been "in the workforce". it was only ever the wealthy upper ( or, for a time in the States, middle ) class women who could spend their days in idle leisure.

Blogger Lana J February 07, 2016 6:07 PM  

If women could not vote, most of the bad things government has enforced on the people in the 20th century would have never been voted on or passed. Just for instance, neither Clinton nor Obama would have been elected without the vote of women. It's just simple math. Women should never have been given the right to vote and every time it comes up, women demonstrate why in the comments just like clockwork.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 6:11 PM  

@115 I was quoting someone else....

Anonymous johnc February 07, 2016 6:14 PM  

it was only ever the wealthy upper ( or, for a time in the States, middle ) class women who could spend their days in idle leisure.

If having and raising kids is your idea of "idle leisure".

Sorry, but full-time career and raising kids (well) aren't very congruent ambitions.

neither Clinton nor Obama would have been elected without the vote of women. It's just simple math.

In 2012, single men and single women went for Obama. Married men and married women went for Romney.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 6:23 PM  

@118: "If having and raising kids is your idea of "idle leisure"."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkp_Dx6VdI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40f5mgQGfY

Anonymous Ahmad ibn Fadhlan February 07, 2016 6:27 PM  

@45 Good post, good discussion. Civilization is an eternal tightrope walk, with stabIe states below. I see the problem as how to keep a *dynamic* balance going for as long as possible.

I agree with GenXGal that removing illegal votes, the takers, those without families, and those whose households draw funds from the political system would have a huge impact. Probably more than removing the vote from women.

Shaitan's Advocate asks: can we keep those barriers, or erect them in the first place, if there is universal adult female female suffrage - which means politics based on feelz?

No way.

This argues that the core problem is how to ensure that you do not have *universal* female suffrage, especially including the young unmarried. GenXGal, do you agree?

Now, the dynamic part. Can you keep that barrier to universal female suffrage up, if partial female suffrage exists? Or do we have an entryist problem?

I think we do, on 2 fronts. One, factions out of power will always see non-voting women as an untapped (*cough*) pool of potential votes. Which means weak barriers will crumble. This brings us to problem #2: barriers will crumble especially fast if there's a natural social constituency to destroy the barrier - and there are 2 of those.

One is low-T Gamma males. The other is the women who already vote. Especially if the women tend to favor the losing Leftist side, as they do. And tend to support, in their own short-term interests, policies and programs that tend to produce more low-T gamma males. Remember, too, that many elections can be swayed by a shift of a few percentage points.

It's much easier to put up a solid barrier of non-Gamma male self-interest, to make advocating for universal female suffrage too dangerous to any major party. Alternative: we must argue that we should make an exception for some women voting, but not another set. Will. Not. Last.

"Make it tribal and refuse to concede any part of the equalist premise" seems to be an emerging alt-Right principle on a number of fronts. Now, the mental kicker: does even that principle work, when you can really only lose once?

The final conclusion seems to be that as long as you have democracy, you will have this dynamic. You can delay things with a modifiable Republic + constitution. You could probably delay things longer with a constitution whose voting criteria were achievable by enough men, but were non-modifiable so long as said constitution existed.

Maximum trigger alert: A supporting societal religion (*ahem*) that solves the female suffrage issue, and operates in an advanced non-Arab population, might also work. Perhaps Houellebecq is right, and the Col.'s Caliphate would look very different?

Note: "Heinlein Laws" re: military service are a bad long-term idea, and a bad male/female filter solution to boot. Static thinking says: "Great!" Dynamic thinking says: "Then the military won't be focused on being a fighting force. It will be a major economic player like Egypt, Iran etc. to plus up numbers, with the added disadvantage of selection criteria that revolve around its use as a vote bank for a ruling statist clique. You get a weaker fighting force AND dictatorship, such a deal!"

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 07, 2016 6:30 PM  

Returning to...

Women's voting and the policies they helped enact are utter chaos. Lady solipsism, credentialism and the narrow boomer brain washing of gen x women and the women to follow bought us zero shame, zero responsibility, feelings worship, lack of any dignify horrific fashion and more chaos in DC. DC and statewide idiocy all because women knoooooowwww better.

Women failed their children, husband and following generations.

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 07, 2016 6:32 PM  

Feminism veiled in suits and dresses is STILL satanic.

Anonymous Steve February 07, 2016 6:32 PM  

Women shouldn't vote. To be fair, most men shouldn't either. We've only had mass democracy for a century - a short span of time in the grand scheme of history - and it's already close to destroying nearly every Western country that has it. Most of them nations that endured for a millennium without it.

No constitution, however well intentioned, can endure against the short political time preferences and loot-your-neighbours temptation inherent in a system that gives people political power just because they live past the age of 18. Remember how stupid you were at 18? I was so dumb I thought socialism was a really good idea.

I'd prefer a Kratman-style Timocracy. Or failing that, get rid of elections and political parties altogether and select the legislature by lottery like they do with jury service. A random assortment of citizens couldn't do worse than the political class.

Or make Vox our God-Emperor by universal acclaim. The downside of that would be the occasional beatings where Malwyn flays your backside to a thumping accompaniment of techno music.

But it'll be worth it to see a real live Scalzi-skin rug.

Blogger bob k. mando February 07, 2016 6:39 PM  

117. Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 6:11 PM
@115 I was quoting someone else....



i was assuming so, because you had it in quotes.

however, the earlier quote is gone ( Ctrl+F doesn't find it anywhere on page where it's not being quoted ) so there's no way for me to know who made that originally.

AND no one else had yet made the obvious point that it was a lie. it's just a lie that patriarchals tend to like to repeat.



122. LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 07, 2016 6:32 PM
Feminism veiled in suits and dresses is STILL satanic.




every aspect of Marxism is Satanic.

you running a little hot today? not much snow to keep you cooled off ...

Anonymous D Meister February 07, 2016 6:41 PM  

Men gave women the vote. Therefore men should not have the vote either.

Anonymous Quartermaster February 07, 2016 6:49 PM  

@33
Robert Heinlein had the right idea in Starship Troopers..

@34
Women should not be allowed to serve in the military in other than auxiliaries such as the WAVES, WAC, or WAF. Sine they could not serve in combat, then they would never vote.

@42
Perhaps, but Christ isn't placing the Church on a pedestal either.

@55
As has already been pointed out, that's debatable.

@64
Jerry Pournelle, IIRC, proposed an income requirement. IIRC he would set the top 20%. I would exclude anyone with a Government salary from any level of government.

@89
Yet a case can be easily made that universal suffrage will be the death of our civilization.

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 07, 2016 7:06 PM  

123 124 Don't worry I have a whip and blue flame all my own. Kidding, superbowl joke! Yes, WV is warm, I hoping for subserzo temps.

According to banking and economics statside or the USA was or is doomed. Good luck to the families raising kids though, I pray I am wrong and I pray that we all will have the lives we strive towards minus the henhouse bitches.

Why didn't the men stand up to the crazy henhouse broads back then? Sex, no, I dont believe it. Some other agenda like above or the bifactional ruling elites had this sewn up before we were born.

Anonymous GenXGal February 07, 2016 7:10 PM  

@Ahmad ibn Fadhlan This argues that the core problem is how to ensure that you do not have *universal* female suffrage, especially including the young unmarried. GenXGal, do you agree?

Great analysis. I agree. That's the challenge. I also see your argument of why it wouldn't last. But I also believe that eliminating women's voting rights entirely would not last.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 7:21 PM  

@24 - video games don't build physical ability. The ones to fear are homeschooled rural kids.

@25 - the SJWs pulled the meritocracy rug from under github (search "meritocracy rug" - and prepare to facepalm - but enjoyed the link in the sense of schedenfreude).

To the Dark Lord, can we fork GitHub in its entirety before it ends up burning down like the library at Alexandria? Maybe enforce the third digital code of conduct?

@27, this assumes there is someone above you, or an air attack, however when I acquire a wife I do plan on holding her close to my chest, and I won't go into further details for the sake of propriety. And do use angle-bracket-'I' or 'B' for quotes

@28 - base suffrage on property ownership. In James Wesley, Rawles novel "Land of Promise", you needed to own 10 hectares to vote (or do something similar). Perhaps one ought not to vote until they have paid $50k in taxes.

Side note - college level awareness is inferior to vocational ed level awareness. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and mechanics rarely are debt slaves.

@39 +1

@40, etc. There is a problem is that you can destroy unit cohesion of a group of men by adding one woman even if she is MORE capable than any of the men. I'm watching the Superbowl. The Cheerleaders are there to cause a testosterone surge, but aren't on the field. Adding a single woman football player to each team would destroy the game.

@43 solipsism is in some senses a synonym for ego or pride. Even if you are perfectly correct, being blind to other's opinions is going to cause problems. Agreed that long time-preference, ability to put others first, etc. is the key. Few women can. Those who do would bodily obstruct other women from access to the polling places.

@44 The problem is that you might pick up more than the woman. You might leave them in the morning and go to the STD clinic in the afternoon. I've noted to the point of exhaustion that women are "sealed for your protection" for a reason.

@49 - Women today are on a cracked and failing pedestal. Anyone intelligent would desire safety, or whatever wall to make defense easier. Originally women (with even little intelligence) would find strong men. Today they believe in the police-fairy that when they dial 911 they will be magically protected. Men don't normally put feminists on the pedestal. White knights end up toothless from the kicks in the head by feminists (assuming they don't figure it out and become knights of color).

@52, and more generally, Women don't ruin everything, they only ruin things they get control of.

@56 - Shhhh! lest someone discover the secret.

@57 - special snowflakes apparently are like special ed. However all snowflakes melt down when the heat is on.

general - perhaps men should have their votes weighted by the number of legitimate dependents.

@73 I moved for the same reason. The purpose of having a republic is to moderate or filter the mob - and a mob of women... Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. It also hath no fury like any women in large groups

@74 Not in lake Wobegone.

@77/root - Women's suffrage does not require despotism to fix. Islam might export women to the caliphate into sex slavery. Has anyone read the TPP in detail? Rapecardian free trade!

(posted at message 80, I'm still reading)



Anonymous Adam February 07, 2016 7:33 PM  

@123 Or make Vox our God-Emperor by universal acclaim.

I still hold that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. However, it tends to fall down during the change-over period.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner February 07, 2016 7:37 PM  

The fat woman that helped North Korea get nukes says that women will burn in hell if they don't vote HilLIARy
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268501-albright-theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-women-who-dont-help-each-other

and women shouldn't tell men what to do Harridans would rather die than give that up.

tz adding one woman even if she is MORE capable than any of the men.

I was a medic in the military. I have to admit I was not capable, like many women in our support battalion turned out to be, of earning money in the back of a Humvee ambulance. In fact I had not even considered the money making that way. I have heard of women coming back from the sand nigger box with duffle bags full of cash.

Blogger Escoffier February 07, 2016 7:41 PM  

If I may I'd like to say what I think everyone is dancing around...

The things we need to do to restore western civilization will be unfair by definition, but entirely necessary. So arguing about fairness kinda misses the point don't you think?

Blogger Doc Rampage February 07, 2016 7:48 PM  

The idea that Western-style democracy has failed is historically ignorant. Western style democracy has presided over the most prosperous period in the history of the world, and in those areas that practiced it, the most peaceful period as well. In earlier incarnations, in Greece, Rome, and the Netherlands, it led to civilizations that were extraordinarily dominant for their size and population. The problems that we're seeing today with democracy are serious problems, but the solution is to tweak the engine to fix the problems, not to throw it out and go back to horses and carriages.

And a lot of the problems that we see today aren't due to the form of government; they are the inevitable results of wealth. People who grow up rich tend to grow up lazy, with dumb ideas about how the world works. In Western-style democracies, we have had several generations where the majority of the population grew up rich by historic standards.

Blogger BunE22 February 07, 2016 7:55 PM  

In 1992 voters were 47% male, 53% female. Clinton got 41% of the male vote, Bush Sr. Got 38%, Perot got 21%. Without women Clinton still would have won.

In 1996 voters were 48% male, 52% female. Clinton got 44% of the male vote, Dole got 45%, Perot got 10%. Without women Dole would have narrowly won.

In 2000 voters were 48% male, 52% female. Bush Jr. got 54% of the male vote, Gore got 43%. Without women Bush still won.

In 2004 voters were 46% male, 54% female. Bush Jr. got 55% of the male vote, Kerry got 44%. Without women Bush still won.

In 2008 voters were 47% male, 53% female. Obama got 49% of the male vote, McCain got 48%. Without women Obama still won.

In 2012 voters were 47% male, 53% female. Obama got 45% of the male vote, Romney got 52%. Without women Romney would have won.

Out of 6 elections 4 would not have been different without women. Men elected Clinton the first time, men elected Bush Jr. Both times, and men elected Obama the first time.

I think the large problem is why more women than men turn out to vote, and why the men that do vote are splitting the vote to a third party or are leaning democrat. Because women?

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner February 07, 2016 7:58 PM  

The things we need to do to restore western civilization will be unfair by definition, but entirely necessary.

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/zika-virus-microcephaly-and-k-selection/

AC is hoping that the avoidable disease will favor the K selected. Zika is spread by mosquito, saliva, blood, and sex. There really is no where to ask the question "If Brazil still has the Olympics+ Carnival, will gay men Typhoid Mary Zika into all the R selected 1st world places? With blacks on the down low and Hispanics being Home Depot rough trade, gays could eradicate non Asian minorities for us." Unlike the meningitis that spread from a NYC bathhouse after Sandy, gays wouldn't really be affected by carrying Zika.

AC said:
The Renaissance was not an accident. It was a disease knocking out as much as half of a population, and focusing on the less capable.

Given the suicidal leftist insanity I see all around, I’m half tempted to get a bumper sticker saying, “The Renaissance was not an accident – Yersinia pestis is our friend.”

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 8:03 PM  

" . . .why the men that do vote are splitting the vote to a third party . . ."

Because I don't want to vote for either of the major party candidates, and because I live in NY, where only my local office votes have half a chance of even mattering.

Blogger Marie February 07, 2016 8:06 PM  

My father raised me to be (as my husband says) slow to temper. When I was a child and emotionally reacted to things my father brought me back down to earth. He taught me not to make a decision based on my initial emotions but to also reason through the situation. My emotions are a useful tool, but they can't be my whole life.

I can assure you, my friends were not raised the same way. I always thought that was a massive disservice to them. It causes them all sorts of problems.

It isn't that women can't be trusted with the vote, it is our society and culture fails to raise women to be women. Most of our adult women are spoiled, selfish little girls.

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 07, 2016 8:10 PM  

Thank you Vox and emailer for todays post.

No, a woman in combat roles cannot carry a 6'2 240-plus man and the gear. Cannot be done.

Growing up X was utter culture shock, if I could have the choice I'd opt for being born well past 2060 or prior to the 1910's.

Blaming boom-booms is llike blaming bankers for the abject theft and bullfeather they got away with in 2007 and beyond, cuz afterall they are above the law.

I dont blame but do blame boomers or our grandparents for the most asinine worldviews. Or we blame no one and believe "they were so sick they didn't know what they were doing."

Meanwhile the Captain or my dad reminds me (often) the nationwide stupidity never ended and the worldviews expressed in postmaerica were always failures and were meant to harm not further the future.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 8:12 PM  

It is not merely women who are leftist. One coworker a while ago described a problem with someone in a garage, and while he - built like a football (american) player de-escalated, his wife was getting the tire iron out of the trunk.

The rational response to someone weaker is to acquire stronger weapons. Men, like wolves, cats, and such can do severe injury or kill each other so learn how to create a hierarchy. Women... not so much, so it tends to be a scorched earth defense - even if they are not liberal.

@86 see above.

@87 - remember "democracies dies when the people find out they can vote themselves monies out of the public treasury". That doesn't mention women, but illustrates the problem. Women will vote to destroy everything.

@89 - see Trump, assuming he isn't cheated or assassinated. Or the Ryan Omnibus budget bill. At some point voting is futile - which isn't bad if you have wise, altruistic rulers. But if you have Tyrants and we have only a democratic choice between the Tyrant who has a red or blue necktie?

@92 see the previous note - since when does any vote in Italy matter?

@97 sigh. The commandment to obey the husband originates with Christ. If the husband says (clearly, specifically) to disobey Christ, it negates the commandment of obedience. It parallels the "lawful order" given to a soldier. The allies hung Nazis at Nuremburg for "following orders".

@105 - women regularly vote to financially rape men, to say nothing of custody.

@107 - The problem of womens' fecundity might be stated "Don't put all your eggs in one basket case".

@108 - not dis-staph, but dis-MSRA infection. Men have been tailors for millennia.

@111 - Women should also have their own island, lets force relocation, women to blue areas, men to red, but allow a return on the penalty of slavery. Most women would starve. (Lind's Victoria in his "zanies" is far too kind). In every Men v.s. Women "survivor" situation, the women starve and would die except for men reintroduced. The Men manage to get along fine and manage to create a comfortable civilization.

general: It is not so much women are in the workforce, it is that they are in the workfarce.
Voting ought not matter except a the margins, but if you push it a little, I'll vote the tyrant out. If you push it further, there's the 2nd amendment.

@123 - A Scalzi-skin rug? EPA superfund site!

@125 - it was originally state by state. Wyoming had tough, rational women and SBA and EKS could have voted with their feet first to get suffrage.

@126 - "death of our civilization" - it is less responsive than Terri Schiavo, so does brain-death count?

@133 - define "western style democracy". We had two world wars. We have demographic suicide. Saying "western style democracy has failed" is like saying hemlock has failed because the person who consumed it isn't dead.

@135 - not at all "unfair". Nature is the most fair of all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwf20t9J1k








Anonymous Stickwick February 07, 2016 8:15 PM  

Are you Astrophysicist?

Yes, I am astrophysicist from great state of Russia. Little known fact: in Soviet Russia, universe study YOU.

Anonymous BakedAK February 07, 2016 8:18 PM  

If women can't vote, then their income should not be taxed.

But that clear fact is besides the point. More to the point is that an all male electorate can't be trusted to acknowledge the common failure of men to consider anyone but themselves.

Anonymous kfg February 07, 2016 8:20 PM  

"Nature is the most fair of all."

Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Nature will always win, but not, perhaps, in your lifetime.

Blogger allyn71 February 07, 2016 8:26 PM  

More to the point is that an all male electorate can't be trusted to acknowledge the common failure of men to consider anyone but themselves.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that sugartits, it helps make the crazy go down.

Blogger Neanderserk February 07, 2016 8:27 PM  

@139 tz

"The problem of womens' fecundity might be stated "Don't put all your eggs in one basket case"."

FTW!

A witticism attributed to Lycurgus, the legendary lawgiver of Sparta, was a response to a proposal to set up a democracy there: "Begin with your own family."

Unfortunately, we have done exactly that, and worse. Therefore, to no-fault divorce, we should say: "Begin with your own Federal Union."

Blogger Escoffier February 07, 2016 8:30 PM  

#141 and before they could vote they would have. Making my point for me, thank you veddy much!

Blogger Marie February 07, 2016 8:31 PM  

"all male electorate can't be trusted to acknowledge the common failure of men to consider anyone but themselves."

Wow.

Will you PLEASE stop making the argument as to why the men should take our vote for them?

Those of us who are smarter, better educated and far more honest than you would appreciate it.

Go pick up a history book.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 07, 2016 8:46 PM  

The main fulcrum of whether any sort of democracy will work if is the people allowed to vote feel a strong sense of accountability for how they vote.

Most women don't really understand accountability very well. They're used to being able to do (or try to do) whatever they feel like, safe in the assumption someone else (usually a man, sometimes an older woman) will either a) stop them from doing something really dangerous, or b) deal with the problems and make it all okay anyway.

So, no. It's not a good idea to let them vote. And yes, there are a lot of men who don't do accountability very well either. They shouldn't be allowed to vote either, but the first cut, the one that eliminates the most problems, is to just look at the rather obvious plumbing differences.

Anonymous Malwyn's apprentice February 07, 2016 8:57 PM  

@54 BunE22: "I do think it should go back to only people that have skin in the game, such as land owners or at the very least those that work and pay taxes. If my own daughters never own land or pay taxes they shouldn't be able to vote, but that would mean some men can't vote either. I'm okay with that, are you?"

Yup, works for me. I had no concept about property taxes had become such a grab bag of pet projects until I started paying them myself. As a child/teen, the idea of adding 1/4% for each dollar of assessed value was chump change, but now? Now I've realized that (as a home owner) I'm the chump.

Blogger dee surjourner February 07, 2016 9:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dee surjourner February 07, 2016 9:20 PM  

Too many are missing the forest for the trees on the voting issue.

No one one who receives state welfare, such as food stamps, Medicaid, state-funded child support, etc:

No one who receive federal subsidies, or has any type of government job, including law enforcement, military while they are serving, any who receive grants for research etc., etc., should be allowed to vote.
The reasoning, such categories are those who will always vote for bigger government and more funding

Blogger Neanderserk February 07, 2016 9:26 PM  

There's a greek play about women who unionize to deny their husband's sex.

It's a comedy because greek conquerors are accustomed to demand sex at swordpoint, and be provided it without fuss.

A man who bears arms is entitled to bare breasts.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 9:43 PM  

@140/Stickwick - She may be both the most intelligent and wisest here. I'd be afraid, but otherwise ask if she has a sister who might find both Catholicism and Wyoming acceptable. Must like guns and other weapons (I'm more into DEW armed drones...).

@132 fairness is not Justice. God, Nature, or man has NEVER been said to be "fair". Nature is always just. God is always just but always tempers it with mercy.

@135 Typhoid Ga(y)ry.

@141 If women can't vote, then their income should not be taxed. Transgender ought not to be encouraged.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 9:45 PM  

@151 The right to keep and bear arms ... and to bare breasts.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 9:47 PM  

Easy, if you get any check drawn upon the US treasury, you can't vote.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 9:49 PM  

When someone says "skin in the game" I tend to wonder if they mean circumspection or circumcision.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 07, 2016 9:57 PM  

@141. BakedAK February 07, 2016 8:18 PM

If women can't vote, then their income should not be taxed.

But that clear fact is besides the point. More to the point is that an all male electorate can't be trusted to acknowledge the common failure of men to consider anyone but themselves.


And, Third Law of SJW for the win. Baked is likely a Boomer blue-hair with *lots* of ice cream filling.

Blogger Desiderius February 07, 2016 10:45 PM  

VD,

"You are too focused on yourself to grasp that in losing your sex-based vote, you will cancel out the vote of nX more irrational, emotional voters. This is considerably more power than you currently have. It's not about there being less rational, less emotional men than you still being able to vote; you are not the lowest acceptable denominator.

Keep in mind that I left a place where I had the vote to live in a place where I did not because I felt that it offered me more freedom. So, this is not an entirely hypothetical exercise; I lived the very action that you are theoretically rejecting."

Ladies and gentlemen, a superintelligence at work.

The other positive of a serious movement to roll back women's suffrage would be the dread game effect it could have on all the sensible women sitting on their asses letting the crazies make them look bad.

They need to get on their traditional role of getting rid of the crazies and raising the next generation themselves.

Blogger tz February 07, 2016 10:50 PM  

Perhaps both suffrage and taxation - and citizenship ought to require the demonstration of minimal sentience.
(stop laughing!!!)

Blogger The Observer February 07, 2016 10:51 PM  

@133 "The idea that Western-style democracy has failed is historically ignorant."

Remember, the reason why the US was an economic powerhouse for so long is because its national anthem was the Star-Spangled Banner!

If everyone adopts this national anthem, then they too can be economic powerhouses! I know people are tired of saying correlation is not causation, but seriously. Someone needs to read their Aristotle and Plato, or Hans Herman-Hoppe if one would like something more modern.

What a load of bunk. Only Athens had anything even approaching mob rule. Rome was rapidly falling into degeneracy until Caesar came and did away with the Republic. And if you think their method of representation was anything like that of a modern democracy, that displays your historical ignorance. For one, women weren't allowed to vote in Athenian democracy. Pretty laughable that the Roman Republic was anything like what we have today.

And even such limited demotic representation was enough to eventually bring them to their knees. Not that it matters, because democracy brings with it perverse incentives for the rulers to buy cheap voters by expanding the voter base as much as possible - any republic with limited representation soon devolves into full-blown mob rule as we can see today, with the UK trying to get children to vote while illegals are being imported by the truckload in the US.

Western material prosperity happened in spite of, not because of democracy, fuelled by devouring stores of human and social capital built up since the Restoration.

Anonymous Adam February 07, 2016 11:13 PM  

@150

No one one who receives state welfare, such as food stamps, Medicaid, state-funded child support, etc:

No one who receive federal subsidies, or has any type of government job, including law enforcement, military while they are serving, any who receive grants for research etc., etc., should be allowed to vote.
The reasoning, such categories are those who will always vote for bigger government and more funding


I agree with everything except for people serving in the military. If you're prepared to put your life on the line to defend your country then you get a vote.

Anonymous JamesD February 07, 2016 11:27 PM  

"Men, you need to man up and demand your rights. That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you.

Reason 102,002 as to why Roman Catholicism is not Christian; it is merely pagan sun worship covering itself with Christ words."

No, it is THE religion that brought Faith and Reason together, i.e. Greek Realism. Starting with Augustine and reaching a climax with Aquinas.

Anyhow, she is wrong for the right reasons. She's trying to express something with a woman's heart: A husband will not hesitate to lay down his life for his wife and kids. As far as authority, a wife has to obey her husband, that is also Catholic teaching (and a good chunk of the Prots also).

Blogger SciVo February 07, 2016 11:28 PM  

@ BakedAK: More to the point is that an all male electorate can't be trusted to acknowledge the common failure of men to consider anyone but themselves.

Oh noes! Men put children first -- even above women?? Quelle horreur!

Blogger LP999 S.I.G. Burnin' Up Gold, Cooling Under Snow February 08, 2016 12:36 AM  

Woe unto the nations led by women, what piaster and decline to follow! Women vote = more problems!

Anonymous Satan's Hamster February 08, 2016 12:48 AM  

"I agree with everything except for people serving in the military. If you're prepared to put your life on the line to defend your country then you get a vote."

The peacetime military is pretty much the epitome of top-down, centralized, 'do what you're told, no questions asked' socialism. I honestly don't understand why the right idolize it so much.

Worse than that, it's been instrumental in the de-manning of men, as it encourages the idea of a separate warrior caste, rather than expecting all men to be ready to fight to defend their culture against attack.

And that's before you consider that, if their job is to 'defend their country', they've been a miserable failure. The last time I remember a Western military defending their territory against invasion was the Falkland Islands in 1982. Otherwise, they've sat back and watched millions of Orcs and other undesirables flood across their borders without lifting a finger.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster February 08, 2016 12:53 AM  

"If women can't vote, then their income should not be taxed."

If women didn't keep voting for MOAR FREE STUFF!, their income wouldn't need to be taxed to pay for it.

OpenID anonymos-coward February 08, 2016 12:59 AM  

A big misunderstanding of what 'democracy' is in this thread.

Voting is not a method for making government policy by public consensus. (That would be idiotic. You can't run a government by public consensus, no more than you can build a bridge by public consensus.)

Voting is a barometer by which the ruling class can judge the legitimacy of its policy decisions.

As such it works wonderfully well and there's no rational reason why women should be left out of this sociological sampling process.

Blogger bob k. mando February 08, 2016 1:16 AM  

106. Tracy Coyle February 07, 2016 5:15 PM
A majority of men (given: those actually voting) voted against their interests - as suggested by VD....suggesting
that absent women voting, men would still vote against their, and the nation's interests.



no one is disputing that historical record.

the results of that historical record is why Vox advocates universal direct democracy.

i am less optimistic than he.



134. BunE22 February 07, 2016 7:55 PM
I think the large problem is why more women than men turn out to vot



you're ignoring the policy distortions that women induce before we ever even get to the voting stage.

i mean, it's hardly as if a single one of the candidates that you mention, of either party, have any interest in men's rights or even true sexual equality ( laws applied equally to women as they are applied to men ).

seriously, would Shrub have even bothered to campaign as a "compassionate conservative" if not for women's votes?

the female vote has distorted every aspect of the electoral and legislative processes.



BunE22:
If my own daughters never own land or pay taxes they shouldn't be able to vote, but that would mean some men can't vote either. I'm okay with that, are you?"



i've already pointed out that that's what the Founders were doing.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit February 08, 2016 1:28 AM  

I've been pointing this out for years to people who say 'yes, women are weaker than men, but the few women who are as good at soldiering as men should be allowed in the military!'

It's an odd construction: "should be allowed" used by both those who don't think women belong in the armed forces and those who do.

Thus: [X] ought/ought not be permitted to participate in [Y] because [Z] reasons.

Better: [X]'s participation in [Y] is necessary for the success of [Y]'s mission.

Entitlement vs. duty.

Blogger Doc Rampage February 08, 2016 1:47 AM  

@139: @133 - define "western style democracy". We had two world wars. We have demographic suicide.
"Western-style democracy" doesn't have a definition, but can be characterized a government that is intended to serve the people and be answerable to the people, to be organized with a set of checks and balances to resist anyone getting too much power, and to provide the most freedom to everyone consistent with the public good.

There is nothing historically unusual about the two world wars other than the technology and although demographic suicide is unusual historically, it isn't unknown. What is really unusual historically is the 70 years of peace in Western Europe, the 150 years with hardly any war casualties in the continental US.

Blogger Doc Rampage February 08, 2016 2:26 AM  

@139: @133 - define "western style democracy". We had two world wars. We have demographic suicide.
"Western-style democracy" doesn't have a definition, but can be characterized a government that is intended to serve the people and be answerable to the people, to be organized with a set of checks and balances to resist anyone getting too much power, and to provide the most freedom to everyone consistent with the public good.

There is nothing historically unusual about the two world wars other than the technology and although demographic suicide is unusual historically, it isn't unknown. What is really unusual historically is the 70 years of peace in Western Europe, the 150 years with hardly any war casualties in the continental US.

Blogger Doc Rampage February 08, 2016 2:37 AM  

@159: I know people are tired of saying correlation is not causation, but seriously. Someone needs to read their Aristotle and Plato, or Hans Herman-Hoppe if one would like something more modern.

What I'm tired of is dimwits who say "correlation is not causation" without having any idea what they are talking about. Here's a clue, if you have actually read and understood Aristotle you will know what inductive reasoning is. The phrase "correlation is not causation" is intended to caution one against purely correlation-based conclusions without an underlying theory of how the causation might occur. Just because in a blog comment I only mentioned the correlation without going into the theory does not mean I don't have a theory and only a dimwit would assume it did. Especially since the various theories of how freedom supports economic growth are hardly obscure.

Only Athens had anything even approaching mob rule. Rome was rapidly falling into degeneracy until Caesar came and did away with the Republic. And if you think their method of representation was anything like that of a modern democracy, that displays your historical ignorance.

If I though they were Western-style democracies I wouldn't have been careful to distinguish them from same. You need to learn to read for comprehension rather than assault. Reading for assault just makes you look like a rube.

Athens was the jewel of Greece in its time, the Roman Republic conquered the known world. The imperial period is known largely for stasis, persecution of Christians, and inviting in the barbarian mercenaries that eventually sacked Rome.

democracy brings with it perverse incentives for the rulers to buy cheap voters by expanding the voter base as much as possible

That's the kind of problem that calls for tweaking, not throwing out the best form of government ever tried. Every form of government has perverse incentives. Dictatorships have the perverse incentive of destroying anyone who shows any signs of leadership and intelligence and courage because they might lead a coup and kill you.

Western material prosperity happened in spite of, not because of democracy, fuelled by devouring stores of human and social capital built up since the Restoration.

That's ridiculous. "Devouring human and social capital" doesn't produce wealth. The modern economy of Europe has orders of magnitude more wealth than it did at any historic time. The US has a similar amount of wealth built on a land mass that had almost no wealth at all up to the 1700s.

Blogger Groot February 08, 2016 2:42 AM  

@32. GenXGal:
"My personality type is an INTJ"

Go, girl. 1 to 3 % of the population, and for a woman, you are a unicorn. I have never met an NTJ who was not impressive. It's the difference between crap fiction and astonishing history. I'm totally not stalking you, but I would love to know more of your story. Interviewing these types is so entertaining. Your goal and destiny is CEO.

@41. Student in Blue:
"IQ does not account for maturity and selflessness. It doesn't even account for having a long time preference."

I so do not get you. Are you a brony or something? I'm pretty sure you're a guy, but...

@44. Satan's Hamster:
"Thanks to feminists, we can now pick up as many women as we want for one-night stands, and not be expected to marry them in the morning. Feminism, at least until the recent 'rape culture!' fad, has been great for men."

It was a lot of fun.

"butt-fucked with a strapon by fat, ugly, cat-lady feminists."

You lost me here. This is just creepy. Have you ever spoken with a woman who wasn't a hooker?

"blah, blah"

See what I mean? Don't do the creepy rape thing.

@allyn71:

I declare you a troll. No man writes likes this, all feelz and insults, no logic. Bring it, you ugly, bitter, cucked little fart. How's Gringott's? If you actually are a man, I'm embarrassed to have you on my side.

66. Tracy Coyle
"maybe it applied to Sparta."

Ha! Yeah, that kick into the pit and "This is Sparta!" was Spock-ian logic. For a kick-ass book that will thrill this sort of thinking, read Righteous Mind.

69. Satan's Hamster:
"Personally, I think democracy is doomed, because it makes no sense in a post-industrial world. I think we're far more likely to return to small, proprietary states with minimal powers beyond defence and courts, as production becomes localized and centralization becomes a liability.

"But it's not hard to see that most of the West's problems began around the time we started letting women and idiots vote. And it's no surprise that many socialists supported mass suffrage, because they could see it would inevitably lead to socialism."

So here's where I feel weird agreeing with someone calling himself "Satan's Hamster." Strange times.

Blogger tz February 08, 2016 7:33 AM  

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2016/02/05/one-armys-1st-female-combat-engineer-recruits-deserter/79817026/

Anonymous Charlie Martel February 08, 2016 9:19 AM  

@6 I remember asking someone about fifteen years ago how democracy would work to protect existing anglo rights when immigrants from the third world and middle east could just get the right numbers and impose their own laws? Dumb silence.

Fortunately, some of us remember 1970's Quebec. Ask away.

Same arrogant attitude, just gender instead of language supremacy. A Rhodesian would probably tell you the same thing (ironically that's what the separatists used to call Anglos). This is never really covered in the Canadian media, and the only ones that broached it were of the Breitbart style.

As for me, Anglo-Quebecker and Acadien who learned French in Ontario.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 08, 2016 9:32 AM  

First argument I ever heard again women voting was a couple of months ago...and came from G K Chesterton. I have to admit, it was surprisingly persuasive.

Interesting subject.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 08, 2016 9:32 AM  

First argument I ever heard again women voting was a couple of months ago...and came from G K Chesterton. I have to admit, it was surprisingly persuasive.

Interesting subject.

Anonymous aegis-1080 February 08, 2016 9:45 AM  

This discussion takes differents shapes, but is always the same:

"Me, me, me, I'm unique, I'm special, I can hang out with the men".

First, you aren't and you just proved it. Second, even if you were, why men should let you when it isn't convenient to them? Why a man should protect a wife that won't submit to him and, more importantly, teaches his children to not obey him?

Men can undestand that someone else won't take a a deal if it isn't convenient to them, but women believe that the world will bend for their special, unique selves, to the detriment of everybody else. There's no point of having this discussion with people that can't simply process this concept, and both IQ and physical capacity has nothing to do with it. Is like talking a different language.

Blogger Durandel Almiras February 08, 2016 10:24 AM  

VD, what restrictions on voting would you add to your direct democracy system to reduce the problems democracy has built in? How does one mitigate the stupid, the solipsistic, and the short-term, instant-gratification thinking?

Perhaps in low trust, multi-culti US I can't trust my fellow lemming citizens but in a homogenous culture like my motherland Italy I wouldn't be so uptight at giving the vote to my neighbor.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 08, 2016 1:40 PM  

Why is it you have to take a test to drive a car, but not to vote? Why do you have to pass a test to be a professional licensed occupation, but not to vote. This Civil Rights and egalitarianism has totally destroyed all semblance of credibility in voting. To accommodate black voters they even got rid of the literacy test. Do you realize you don't have to prove you can read to vote anymore because of black Civil Rights? This system is a joke.
Womens' suffrage was pushed by Communists and Socialists specifically because women are emotional and easily tricked by liars and false promises. Guys like Bill Clinton and Obama wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected without the stupid womens' vote. Look at the vote counts and see how women have elected every idiot and traitor in American History. This is not a bug its a feature.

Blogger Student in Blue February 08, 2016 1:46 PM  

@Groot
I so do not get you. Are you a brony or something? I'm pretty sure you're a guy, but..

You lost me. Are you calling me an autist, and why?

Blogger BunE22 February 08, 2016 2:21 PM  

"Guys like Bill Clinton and Obama wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected without the stupid womens' vote. Look at the vote counts and see how women have elected every idiot and traitor in American History"

This is the second time someone in the thread made that statement and maybe if you say it enough people will believe it.

Unfortunately, facts are terrible things. Men elected Bush Jr. 2 times, so all the things he did to the country that people here complain about was because of the male voters.

Clinton and Obama both won their first term on the male vote alone. As an informed person knows the incumbent president is more likely to be re-elected.

So thanks guys.

Blogger Student in Blue February 08, 2016 2:54 PM  

@182 BunE22

1) Re-read @67, and realize that boys are indoctrinated to become more feminine,
2) Realize that back then there wasn't nearly as much of a wide-spread awareness that the Establishment wasn't choosing both sides of the race.

For years and years people have been decrying the "choosing the lessor of two evils" aspect of the Presidential race.

Of course, the people saying "Clinton and Obama wouldn't have been elected without women" are wrong. They're missing a lot of finer detail and just oversimplifying things, but that's common human error.

Blogger allyn71 February 08, 2016 4:33 PM  

Arguing about who voted for whom anytime after women's suffrage is missing the forest for the trees. Bush or Obama wouldn't have even been in the race if women weren't voting, at least not running the campaigns they did.

@173 Groot no matter how much you kiss her ass she still isn't going to let you touch her boobs.

Anonymous Kevin February 08, 2016 4:57 PM  

I think last time I looked at the data the divide is not women vs men, its single women vs married women. Single women are the destroyers because they need government as a husband. So, since women are never going to lose the vote in free societies the only reasonable option is to advocate for marriage as much as possible.

Blogger dfordoom February 08, 2016 5:25 PM  

77. intuitivereason

It's not like despotism and representative democracy are the only forms of government conceivable.

Absolutist monarchy is looking better and better.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 08, 2016 5:39 PM  

Why does everyone have a vote? When this Republic was started only White Landowners were allowed to vote. People who have no stake in the outcome should have no say in it either.
This whole voting for a new people is against the entire point of the revolution. The Founding Fathers didn't want anyone being allowed here, they wanted this country for them and their POSTERITY. Muslims, blacks, hispanics, and indians were in no way part of the Founders.
The idea that propositions were involved at all is Bullshit. Its about White Western Civilization. Race is everything. No other race has demonstrated the ability to have the same culture or belief in Liberty and Freedom as the White Race and Northern Europeans and Aryans in Particular.
I am not giving up Civilization and Freedom for any Bullshit about equality or propositions. Take your propositions to a hooker and blow. That line about "All men are Created Equal" is a swipe at the King and the concept of Blue Blood giving Divine Right to rule, and nothing else. Michael Kang can Kiss My Ass.

Blogger Kirk Parker February 08, 2016 5:41 PM  

I'm from a state that has the initiative process. No, No, NO to direct democracy.

Blogger Kirk Parker February 08, 2016 5:45 PM  

I'm from a state that has the initiative process. No, No, NO to direct democracy.

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 08, 2016 9:02 PM  

#184 Allyn71 said

"@173 Groot no matter how much you kiss her ass she still isn't going to let you touch her boobs."

In one sentence Allyn71 destroys the 'absolutist male argument'

'no matter how much you kiss her ass'
A MAN doesn't have to kiss ass to earn a WOMAN'S respect

'she still isn't going to let her touch her boobs'
1. As if a MAN's purpose to get to 1st base
2. You're quick to dismiss and denigrate women...this whole sentence screams frustrated rabbit...

I get that most of us look pretty stupid - it is more the way you LOOK at us than fact - but I will also agree that the vast majority react emotionally with nary a thought to 'reality and reason'. I HAD to take a woman's studies course in college (1989) and with the exception of the TA and myself, no greater group of morons have I had the ill fate to have to spend 30 hours 'discussing politics'.

I volunteered to serve in the Air Force when joining the military was still frowned upon by 'polite society' (1977). I could not, even had I desired to, fill a combat role - I was an air traffic controller. I respect anyone that volunteers. My brother was AF for 26 years, my nephew is in 12 yrs, is an Army Ranger, has done tours in Iraq and elsewhere. My father, an immigrant, did 3 years in the Army.

I'm ENTJ btw.

VD notes his choices and experiences have informed his positions - as it should be. Logic can be false, knowledge by itself, deficient. I would be quick to question any engineer whose designs have never been tested in the real world. We have a laboratory, some things have worked, many have not. Clearing the debris of the failures is as important and prepping the next attempt...

Blogger Tracy Coyle February 08, 2016 9:03 PM  

....in my opinion....the only one in this thread that seemed to even suggest the 'absolutist male argument' was in Allyn71.

Blogger Groot February 08, 2016 9:24 PM  

@181. Student in Blue:
"You lost me. Are you calling me an autist, and why?"

No, and that's an example of what I meant: I find you unpredictable. How'd you get that from what I said? Most people, you can probably already guess what they'll say, at least the tone. But with you, it's like a dog coming across something with no scent. There's nothing wrong with it. I was just curious.

@184. allyn71:
"Groot no matter how much you kiss her ass she still isn't going to let you touch her boobs."

With that mouth, personality fail, and seriously problematic flirtation techniques, no matter how much you pay her, she won't let you kiss her mouth.

Blogger Student in Blue February 08, 2016 10:03 PM  

@Groot
No, and that's an example of what I meant: I find you unpredictable. How'd you get that from what I said?

Most people I run across, that's the quickest mental association they have with a brony - a fedora-tipping neckbeard autistic basement-dweller.

Most people, you can probably already guess what they'll say, at least the tone. But with you, it's like a dog coming across something with no scent. There's nothing wrong with it. I was just curious.

Different minds think differently. I did not grok the intention behind your question, so there's further evidence.

Just as well, I try to engage in different patterns of tone and dialogue based on the person and/or audience I'm conversing with. For someone who was a self-professed INTJ, despite her emotional proclivity, I figured the best way to communicate with her was with dry tone clear of emotion and crammed full of knowledge.

Speaking to her on her level, as it were.

For someone like you I'd wind up concentrating on whimsical yet clearer sentences. I believe you'd relate to it better.

Blogger Groot February 09, 2016 12:05 AM  

@193. Student in Blue:

Oh, I get it. You're an NF. Fair enough.

Anonymous Shnookums February 09, 2016 4:05 AM  

...direct democracy with full female suffrage...

Can any of the regulars explain what the thinking behind this is? Wouldn't direct democracy be a mess? And if female suffrage is bad in a representative democracy, why would it work in a direct one?

Blogger Student in Blue February 09, 2016 9:32 AM  

@196. Groot
Oh, I get it. You're an NF. Fair enough.

Actually, INTP, but that test was done a while ago.

Blogger Student in Blue February 09, 2016 9:33 AM  

@195. Shnookums
Can any of the regulars explain what the thinking behind this is? Wouldn't direct democracy be a mess? And if female suffrage is bad in a representative democracy, why would it work in a direct one?

As best as I can remember, it's only because it's never been attempted before and only possible now due to technology.

It's also effective rhetoric for Vox.

Anonymous DNW February 09, 2016 4:29 PM  

She has had enough of non-thinking, and those who refuse to.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts