How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization

by ramzpaul on September 15, 2010

By ramzpaul

A few weeks ago Google paid homage to the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. The following tag was on their home page complete with a little pink checkbox that represented a woman making her choice at the ballot box.

Celebrating 90 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote”

As a globalist corporation, Google does not “celebrate” various anniversaries based on the whims of some individual webmaster. Such decisions on what to commemorate on Google’s main page are carefully determined based on cynical political calculations. Either the occasion must be non-controversial (e.g., Celebrating the 71st Anniversary of the Wizard of Oz) or politically correct.

A Short History of Cultural Marxism

“Political correctness” is simply the modern slang term for what is properly known as Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism was developed in 1920s Germany at Frankfurt University. Unlike Revolutionary Marxism which advocated violent revolution to establish a new society (such as the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.) Cultural Marxism advocated destroying Western Civilization through cultural subversion. One of the key concepts spawned from the Frankfurt school was called Critical Theory. The Critical Theory ideology that was developed in the 1930s was responsible for many of the “politically correct” memes we hear today, such that sex (gender) is a social construct.

The architects of Cultural Marxism were expelled from Germany in the 1930s once the National Socialists (Nazis) gained power. These refugees found new homes primarily in America and England. When World War 2 ended, the Cultural Marxist ideology soon metastasized quickly across American and English universities.

So while it is popular to imagine that all these radical cultural changes (such as feminism) started with the hippies and beatniks in the 1960s, the roots actually extend back to 1920s Germany and 19th century Marxism.

Over the past 50 years, Cultural Marxism has been wildly successful in the West and it is now the de facto ideology for the establishment. As was the case in the Soviet Union, everyone knows what thoughts are politically acceptable and what thoughts are heretical. Global corporations such as Google are savvy enough to “celebrate” the proper political ideas.

For example, while Google is proud to celebrate the 19th Amendment with a cute pink checkbox, I doubt Google would celebrate the 2nd Amendment with an illustration of a White Man holding a rifle. And all of us who were raised under Cultural Marxism instinctively know why this is the case.

The 19th Amendment

The right for women to vote now seems as American as All-You-Can-Eat buffets and Wal-Mart. Try suggesting to a typical God fearing, flag waving, Republican and Tea Party conservative that giving the vote to women was a bad idea, and watch him recoil in horror like a vampire looking at a cross. To even think of such a notion is anathema and un-American. After all, our brave troops are fighting the evil Muslims in the Middle-East to protect our right to vote!

And yet, for most of America’s history the vast majority of men (and women) were opposed to women’s suffrage. So were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln all secret women haters with small penises? Or might they have had another reason to oppose female suffrage?

The 19th Century Argument Against Suffrage

Most of the arguments against female suffrage have now gone down the memory hole. School children are now taught that suffrage was inevitable and the people who opposed suffrage in the prior generations were simply backwards and ignorant. Because it is obviously axiomatic that female suffrage is a good thing. To even debate the subject would be crazy! As such, historical writings against suffrage are ignored and buried.

However, extracted from the depths of time is an essay written by a woman who was opposed to suffrage. This essay detailed the logical reasons why female suffrage would harm America.

Thoughts on Female Suffrage

By Madeline Dahlgren, 1871

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=19950_O_16&PagePosition=1

We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duty God has imposed upon us, than they [men] have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist.

It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and husbands love us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field and the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial that it could possibly be were all women allowed to vote.”

Notice that it was assumed that men and women have different biological natures and, as such, God has given men and women different responsibilities. The notion that sex is just a social construct would have been considered to be absurd. Also notice the frequent references to religion. Prior to the Cultural Marxist revolution (Cultural Marxism abhors Christianity) Christian ideals were appealed to in an unapologetic manner.

The basic argument against female suffrage was that women were represented by their husbands, fathers and sons at the ballot-box. The essay further argues that as mothers raised their sons (this was before mothers warehoused their children in daycare to pursue their corporate careers) women actually fundamentally shaped the character of men, and hence, the direction of America. As such, women had a powerful voice and they were represented.

Later in the essay, Dahlgren predicted that female suffrage would create competition between men and women which would create an antagonism. Instead of a family standing in unity, suffrage would divide the house. Such division would create discord into the family and weaken the marriage tie. Dahlgren predicted that divorce would become common if women were given the vote.

Dahlgren writes:

We hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. “

As a contemporary of Marx, Dahlgren correctly identified that the push for female suffrage was Marxist in origin. Fifty years later the Cultural Marxists implicitly agreed with Dahlgren that the best way to destroy Western Civilization (aka Christendom) was to undermine the family. And the seeds that were planted in the 19th amendment paved the way for the spawning of what would be known as feminism.

The people opposed to female suffrage proved to be right beyond their wildest predictions. As Google was celebrating the 19th amendment, a British newspaper detailed the boasting of a 26 year old woman who claims to have had sex with 5,000 different men. If Madeline Dahlgren were alive today, I am sure she would have understood the connection between female suffrage in the West and the decline of civilization.

Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.

{ 222 comments… read them below or add one }

Gunn September 15, 2010 at 07:24

Democracy is when you get other people to pay for what you want. Thats why it started off only giving voting rights to those who owned the wealth or paid for the actions taken by governments in their name.

Womens’ suffrage, unbound by corresponding responsibility has helped the west to become what it is today. Bankrupt and heading into ruin.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 96 Thumb down 27
Alte September 15, 2010 at 07:34

Thank you for writing this. Laura Grace has also provided extensive proof of this.

Ann Coulter has made the suggestion of repealing female suffrage, pointing out that:

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’

She later claimed that the statement was not satire, and that she really meant it. Vox Day has written something similar. They both get a lot of flak for it, but nobody can refute their logic, other than to say, “You’re a big meanie!” The same reaction the Church gets for forbidding women from entering the priesthood.

I think women already have an enormous influence on men, so giving them the vote is like handing them the keys to the nation. Too much of a good thing is still too much.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 98 Thumb down 17
The Jolly Misogynist September 15, 2010 at 07:38

I have two photos of suffragettes being arrested in London, GB, in the early 1900. One photo shows the famous suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst being dragged away by police officers. If you want these photos just let me know how to upload them or send them by mail.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10
NWOslave September 15, 2010 at 07:57

Before women’s sufferage a man was the head of the household. He held a duty of seeing to the welfare and happiness of his wife and family. A women held the duty of the health and happiness of her husband and family.

They worked together towards a common goal, mutual happiness. No man would ever vote or lobby for a law that would endanger or harm his wife, mother or sister. Thus a man would look at the big picture, discuss it with his family and do what was best in their interest.

When we hear of women “chained” to the home, I find this absurd. I work on the road and I can’t wait to get home. When you leave work and your stuck in traffic you mumble to yourself, I can’t wait to get home. Even after a vacation you unpack and say it’s good to be home. Someone please chain me to my home.

Did women before sufferage do all the domestic chores, yes they did. Did men do all the paying jobs, yes they did. When a man got home he and his wife held and loved each other happy to be reunited. They both suffered equally during the day away from each other.

Contrary to the horror stories of men coming home to beat their wives on a daily basis I’m quite certain the literature of centuries gone by would have reflected this. Many of us have letters from long ago and I don’t recall the daily beatings part of the norm.

Even hundreds of years ago women on the whole were better educated than men. We only ever hear about the greats in the various fields of education. Women were able to educate themselves to a greater degree at home than men who worked as carpenters, lumberjacks and such were able to. The masses did not have access to higher education as a rule.

For the first few hundred years of this country men held the top wrung of political authority. They discussed with their wives what would be in their best interest as a family, not what was in the best interest of a giant socialist goal. The government was subordinant to them.

Now a days the government holds all the power, the women answer to Big Daddy Guv and men are subordinant and accountable to everyone. Women’s sufferage has not improved anyone’s lot in life.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 132 Thumb down 19
Migu September 15, 2010 at 08:05

I just finished the linked essay.

An “oppressed” woman without the right to vote wrote that. How many “educated” women today could write that well, and think that clearly, with supporting points, an a priori foundation, and even empirical data?

Just compare and contrast that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 11
Meistergedanken September 15, 2010 at 08:06

There was a French prime minister in the 19th Century who once said (if I am remembering it correctly):

“Nature has given women so much power that it is wise that the State gives them so little”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 10
clarence September 15, 2010 at 08:12

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 101
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 08:25

@Clarence

I blame welfare abusing scum too. Unfortunately, now that we no longer ostracise single mothers, have mandatory public healthcare, favor womens’ pensions over mens’, promote womens’ education over mens’, and employ mainly women in the public sector, the biggest abusers of welfare are women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 92 Thumb down 17
Bob September 15, 2010 at 08:28

A lot of us are arguing from the utilitarian grounds of results – women voting creates societal collapse, therefore, female suffrage = bad. In contrast, suffrage supporters are arguing from a stance of natural rights – they claim that, merely by exisitng and being members of society, they deserve the right to vote, whatever the results. Well, those that can form a proper argument, anyway.

The second stance is fundamentally more libertarian. It’s the same reasoning behind freedom of speech and petition – no matter whate horrible things get said or what stupid things find support, merely by being human we are endowed by our Creator with the right to them. People will talk about the (perceived) virtues of communism, or petition for more taxpayer-funded freebies, and some of these things will become law, but we still refuse to restrict either freedom.

Obviously, both arguments have their issues when taken out to the extreme logical conclusion (for the first, it’s most logical to appoint a handful of rulers from the wisest of us; for the latter, it’s most logical to allow children and fellons to vote), but within the realms of moderation and reason, we can’t find common ground because we’re using two different schools of thought.

If anything, the high prevalance of libertarians among MRA’s means that the feminists have co-opted our own arguments for this issue. In every other instance – welfare, taxpayer-funded daycare, affirmative action – they argue from utilitarian grounds (again, when they can form a coherent argument), while MRA’s and libertarians argue from natural rights. They think the world would be a better place if daycare was a given; we think they have no right to demand our money to raise their spawn. But not this issue.

For consistency’s sake, I’d say we need to drop the “female suffrage destroys society” argument and either find a natural rights argument, or concede that women deserve to vote whatever the consequences. The only middle ground I could think of would be some kind of test to vote, but between the vulnerability of such tests to lobbyists, and the very racist history of such literacy tests in America, implementing a voter qualification test would probably be even more dangerous to scoiety, while still denying good, wise voters their voice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 17
Alte September 15, 2010 at 08:29

Clarence,

Suffrage is a right of leadership, and men are the leaders. Women shouldn’t be given the right to vote without the related duty of leadership, including provision and protection.

As for libertarianism, the country is already collapsing. Your point?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 21
TFH September 15, 2010 at 08:34

We have yet to see if a society can survive 100 years of women voting. America is currently in year 91, with the 100-year mark happening in 2019.

After women get the right to vote, the first 50 years actually see prosperity (since most women there are still ensconsed in family/matronly roles, and at least vote in a manner that benefits families). However, after prosperity rises in years 50-90, women in the 3rd and 4th generation after suffrage get the bright idea of voting themselves more and more money via stripping men of rights. The past prosperity momentum keeps this subtle cancer concealed from most people, but by year 90, the cancer catches up to society. That is where we are now…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 95 Thumb down 10
Rebel September 15, 2010 at 08:35

We are now past the point of singularity. I mean, there is no turning back. (I sometimes wonder how it could be done anyway).
Better yet, I wonder if we would go back if it was at all possible.

Civilizations come and go. And when one dies, another one raises from its ashes. I see no reason to mourn the death of this one, in its present state. Honestly, does anyone really want to perpetuate the state of affairs we are experiencing now?
We want to go back to a more comfortable time but that’s a big mistake: we must welcome change even if that means a complete reset.

Let’s look forward and try to create something new.

Like they say in England: “The king is dead, long live the king!”.

Humanity will go on no matter what happens to our political institutions.

In a few decades, we may look back and wonder what it was that made us cling so hard to the dying western civilization.

We already know that our fate is decline and collapse and that other regions of the world will dictate the future direction of mankind. We have done our part.

Also, let us not forget that feminism has not freed women, but it DID free men. By a strange turn of events, the end results have not been what was originally intended. Or perhaps it was the other way around..

I think that our civilization has reached the end of its useful life. It is now time to change receipe so that mankind can make yet another leap forward.

Strangely enough, I equate the disappearance of West. Civ. as a blessing in disguise.

Men are no longer expected to carry the world on their shoulders. And this, in itself, is good for men.

We must embrace that new freedom that we never really had before and turn our minds to something more creative.

I am a spectator here and I’m beholding the deconstruction of something that was once great, but now has grown decrepit. I already picture in my mind’s eyes what the next society will look like.

We live in exciting times.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 17
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 08:48

@Bob the only reason you see a conflict is that you have strawmanned the argument for universal suffrage as being libertarian.

A liberterian accepts as little state intervention as possible. Today’s democracies trample over this principle with jackboots, and inflict the tyranny of the mob over minorities or the individual. Anything which promotes this rampant abuse is anti-libertarian. Womens’ suffrage, because it involves bloc-voting for womens’ privileges at the expense of other groups in society, is surely anti-libertarian.

If we had small government as the overriding principle, universal suffrage might work; however, womens’ suffrage has gone hand in hand with runaway government meaning that one cannot just overlook outcomes as you propose.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 5
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 09:02

Putting it another way: suppose i had no right to vote, but the government did not tax me, did not impose any extra-contractual obligations on me (e.g. prohibition of drugs or self-harm/suicide), and allowed me to choose whether or not to pay for specific services such as use of roads (and suppose furthermore that there were reasonable alternatives available to me). This arrangement is perfectly libertarian in my view.

I.e. suffrage is not a necessary condition (and it is definitely not sufficient!) for libertarianism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel September 15, 2010 at 09:08

RamZ

Thanks for this great article and for discovering this brilliant woman, Madeline Dahlgren. Here are some more quotes from her 1871 article.

“The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes now so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more, and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world.”

“Reverse the conditions – take woman out of her proper sphere – and in place of man’s precious and true guide and coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy. But here we must note a danger. There is reason to believe from several evidences that the strength of this movement is really to be found among the men, who use the female agitators to affect political gains………..While conservative women may stay at home the infamous women of our cities, numbering thousands, will be brought to the polls as a unit, and every such vote bought by some scheming politician. What legislation will this vote ask for? Surely nothing less than a social disorganization.”

“The wild doctrines of the European Socialists, calling loudly for a common life to man and woman, have found their way amongst us, and we are garnering some harvest of the bitter fruit in all this demoralizing agitation in favor of female suffrage………Many of the advocates of these doctrines amongst us would consistently commence by a direct attack upon the inviolability of Christian marriage. This destroyed, and challenged to a mere form of civil contract, similar to the old hand-foestan of the Anglo-Saxon, the Christian family in its various relations also disappears. And when our altars and hearths are rudely torn away by this iconoclastic fury, that proud fabric called the State, which now towers so proudly heavenward, being sapped in its very foundation-stones, will, Babel-like, topple forward to destruction.”

Oh, and “Reality Mugs a Liberal.” Thumbs up.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4
Omega_Dork September 15, 2010 at 09:19

I think you mean “very few people realize”, not “very few people fail to realize”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
sestamibi September 15, 2010 at 09:20

I’ve always said that there’s simply no idea too looney for our “enlightened” American electorate to embrace.

Expect sometime in the next twenty years a serious effort to restrict suffrage to women only. After all, why should men, who are responsible for all the world’s ills, to have any say in government?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4
Migu September 15, 2010 at 09:21

It’s a good point rebel. We’ve made many mistakes, hopefully we will discard them.

The trend right now is discount the successes and mark up the failures.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Coastal September 15, 2010 at 09:27

What Gunn Said.

There’s nothing either natural or right in two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Clarence September 15, 2010 at 09:30

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 41
Charles Martel September 15, 2010 at 09:41

@Rebel

Men are no longer expected to carry the world on their shoulders. And this, in itself, is good for men.

Perhaps too optimistic. The UK Government recently floated the suggestion that the UK tax authorities take DIRECT CONTROL of private sector paychecks. In other words, at the end of the month your employer would send your gross pay to HM Revenue (the IRS in the US) and then the government would pay you whatever it decides you deserve.

Our future dystopia can now be dimly glimpsed.
1. Big Husband Government directly controls all private sector paychecks.
2. The Man Tax ensures that all men pay higher taxes.
3. Brave single mothers by choice (BSMBC) can nominate any unrelated man to pay their living expenses (already happening to a limited extent in some states, e.g. CA).
4. Paper currency is abolished – ALL private sector financial transactions are now visible to Big Husband Government.
5. All topped off with a thick layer of jack-booted and unaccountable NWO totalitarianism.

Naaah – this could never happen. Maybe I need another cup of coffee.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 4
namae nanka September 15, 2010 at 09:48

On the topic of dying civilizations:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2010/09/decline-of-our-empire.html

From the article:

“Money replaces honour and adventure as the objective of the best young men.
[...]Gradually, and almost imperceptibly, the Age of Affluence silences the voice of duty. The object of the young and ambitious is no longer fame, honour, or service, but cash.

Education undergoes the same gradual transformation. No longer do schools aim at producing brave patriots ready to serve their country. Parents and students alike seek the educational qualifications which will command the highest salaries.”

and particularly the issue of women amongst them:
pg17
http://www.arlev.co.uk/glubb/index.htm

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Migu September 15, 2010 at 09:48

Every time someone tries to outlaw the Sun, it comes up in the east on schedule.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4
namae nanka September 15, 2010 at 09:49

imo once prosperity has been achieved and there is an abundance of wealth, there will be a gradual loosening of sexual and cultural mores; clamors from women for wealth and hence, power; marginalized groups whose problems weren’t really worth the time before when the majority was fighting for survival come forth(gays, promiscuous minority, animal rights?); youth gaining more say and influence in the society(the bad kind). And these effects will add over generations till the deviancy tends to the norm and wealth runs out and/or the empire is conquered by a more disciplined army or even a culture.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3
barsin September 15, 2010 at 09:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 79
Fabron September 15, 2010 at 10:02

Meistergedanken,

It does indeed look like something the French would say, but it was actually an observation by Samuel Johnson — English poet and writer, 1709-1784.

Your memory is very good and you had the quote almost correct. Here it is:

“Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader September 15, 2010 at 10:06

Clarence, you appear to be using a category error as a premise. The fact that some women have been able to function in the past as providers/protectors does not at all prove that all or most of them can do so. Science is telling us more and more that men and women are different at the physical level; not just “innie” vs. “outie”, but in terms of the very structure of the brain itself. Women as a group think differently than men do. The existence of outliers proves nothing substantial.

In this case, it is easy to show that in the 19th century there were plenty of corrupt elections. I once read the biography of “Mad” Anthony Wayne, hero of the Revolution and frontier fighter. Later he got into politics. In those days it was common to open a barrel of whisky or rum as part of the campaign, on election day. Government was small and could not do much to individuals, so corrupt elections did not matter so much.

Fast forward to the 20th century, and we see that in the 1920′s and 1930′s women’s votes went to such politicians as would offer the most goodies for “free”. Women voters were a key bloc in Germany in the 1930′s in post-Weimar Germany, and they turned out in droves for the National Socialist party.

Today, there is a clear split in women voters in the US, with singles going almost entirely for the Democrats, the party of more government. This has worked well for them for decades, but unhappily for all of us the well of money is running dry. When the next financial crisis comes, it will likely be one of sovereign debt; the US bonds won’t be sold except at high prices.

Women aren’t the only ones willing to vote themselves the treasury, men have done their part. But women don’t think the same way men do, and it shows in their voting patterns as well as in their leadership patterns. The same suffragetttes who demanded voting rights for women were also generally supportive of the prohibition of alcohol, and we all know how that worked out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
Anonymous Reader September 15, 2010 at 10:09

All of this suggests that Sarah Palin is a logical candidate for President, by the way. A notion that fills me with dread.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 10:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 47
Malestrom September 15, 2010 at 10:31

The answer is simple to me; only net payers who register for the draft get to vote. Unless you directly fund the actions of the state and are willing to defend it against external threats you get no say in what it does.

This would very helpfully eliminate the roughly 100% of women who fail at either or both of those conditions. Also, most of the disqualified men would be those who would have voted for socialism anyway, so no loss there.

Also, it is sex neutral, to argue against it on sexist grounds would be to admit that women are parasites and cowards by nature, true obviously, but no feminist minded individual is going to want to accept or imply that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 12
Rebel September 15, 2010 at 10:38

@ Charles Martel

I see your points. But they do not contradict mine.

And the new rules about to be introduced will further accelerate the decline.

Men in the U.K. are, if I’m not mistaken, leaving the country in droves or are becoming “ghosts”, living under the radar. Who will defend the country when it is torn apart?
In America, thousands upon thousands of men are either on a marriage no-go or they look for foreign wives. So, who’s the winner?

Because of a deadly decline in birthrates, we are becoming more and more dependant upon immigration… Do you think that many of them will now want to emigrate to our countries? I do not believe so. How many wanted to emigrate to the Soviet Union?

No economy can survive if the men decide to keep their wages low and decrease their consumption of goods.

Bartering may even be a good way out of the system altogether.

The government is doing its best at forcing men on their knees but it will only trigger more and more resentment on the part of men.

The more punitive the government will get the faster the collapse will take place.

Young men nowadays are not motivated. They do not care about anything but themselves. You don’t have a powerful and flourishing civilization when things like that happen. The young have already made up their minds: no tyranny!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 2
Elusive Wapiti September 15, 2010 at 10:45

Bob wrote:

For consistency’s sake, I’d say we need to drop the “female suffrage destroys society” argument and either find a natural rights argument, or concede that women deserve to vote whatever the consequences. The only middle ground I could think of would be some kind of test to vote,

Fair enough. From a natural rights standpoint, we have the following sample of natural rights:

(1) All men have the natural right to private property
(2) All men have the natural right to free association
(3) All men have the natural right to self-defense

We can see that female suffrage empowers the twin female desires for security and dominance as it attacks all three, inevitably resulting in:

(1) The whimsical confiscation of private property under threat of violence and incarcertation, and distributing said private property to those who did not labor for it. In other words, government welfare of any kind to any party. Note that chilimony also falls under this category
(2) Shoehorning women into men’s associations, and prohibiting men from excluding them. Note that the reverse does not apply. Employers are also forced to hire women.
(3) Men hitting or otherwise harming women is punished, even when in self-defense, whereas the reverse is not.

Honestly, I think a natural rights argument is a loser, because our society more or less has set the natural rights philosophy aside. Instead, society seems to have agreed with the dictum that the only rights that matter are the ones that you take for yourself and can defend through violence, political or otherwise. Thus the political/legal process is all that matters, the outcome of which is that others have no rights worth respecting if they cannot defend them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 4
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 10:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 51
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 10:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 42
Snark September 15, 2010 at 10:59

Women are now obsolete

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1312221/First-artificial-human-ovary-mature-eggs-outside-body.html

SHALL we see the same kind of articles that appeared when artificial sperm cells were created – you know, the ones calling for a male Holocaust, arguing that men are worth keeping around but only as dumb animals, etc.? Will we now see these about women?

Nah.

That would be MEAN.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 4
the universe September 15, 2010 at 11:10

The female leisure middle class of the late 1800s and early 1900s stumped for female suffrage which eventually led to a form of leisure class we see today.
That is, via special female only commissions, entitlements, and protections: a glut of entire bureaus of phony social ameliorization programs; revisionist ‘academia’, affirmative action, WAVA/DV, enTitlement IX, unequal military service, female favouring paid child custody, outrageous alimony, and on and on and on, etc.
And female leisure equivilent programs paid for mostly by efforts not of their own doing. Funding for such coming from a percentage extracted from mens’ taxed labour (and several future taxed generations paying interest on the loans to fund this ruse. Wealthy banking interests become set up for generations).
Can MANkind ever consciously break this curse? Stay tuned to some of the most commendable writing of many in the mrm.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:22

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 40
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 11:23

Wow, skadi your conveniently simple minded. What you call incentives is also oppression to a whole class of people. The state is not supposed to be the support system for people who CHOOSE to have kids. In effect men would essentially be indentured servants their whole lives to families they do not belong to. Why should I be giving my hard earned money in the form of taxes to support a mother I don’t know. Your asking me to work for someone else, to something I’m not a part of. Thus I would be an indentured servant.

You keep on talking about women chowing to have kids and suggesting that I needs them to have more. First off I don’t in any way want to support single motherhood. Secondly if higher birth rates was our societies all consuming purpose women would also have their freedoms taken away. Simply put if they want the freedom to chose motherhood or not they need to leave the state out when left their decision.

Though your simplistic thinking is interesting. Maybe we should force Catholicism because Catholic countries have higher birthrates. Aren’t Islamic countries the same way? Banning women from universities might also increase the birthrate.

Point being stop looking for privileges at every turn.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 6
evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2010 at 11:24

Well that’s the thing right there. So long as we ran things the way THEY saw fit they had no problem with the ‘patriarchy’. (Because such a patriarchy is little more than a matriarchy by proxy.)
http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 11:30

Corrections;

chosing, not chowing

should read that I need, not needs

Should read when left with their decision

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Snark September 15, 2010 at 11:31

There was something in Forbes this week about creating artificial sperm from a woman’s cells..

This happened about a year ago, Skadi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 11:39

@barsin: i doubt anyone here believes that womens’ suffrage could or would be repealed anytime soon. Consider this debate as you would counterfactual history; what if?

just because you are unwilling to account for the severe damage done to the west by womens’ suffrage it doesnt make it less true. if anything, your head in the sand serves to perpetuate one of the largest scale injustices ever to afflict humankind: 50m dead through abortion, hundreds of million men robbed of their property via unfair taxes, men defrauded of their genetic heritage through cuckoldry, countless millions hurt or killed by the dv industry, scores of mens lives destroyed via false rape allegations, the list goes on and on.

and your contribution to this debate? “stop your whining guys, and let women tread all over you; its what men do!”

fuck off.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 4
Rebel September 15, 2010 at 11:41

@Skadi
“There was something in Forbes this week about creating artificial sperm from a woman’s cells..”

What was your point, exactly?

My understanding is that men and women don’t need one other for anything now: not sex (sex toys galore), not kids (each will have their own), not companionship, nothing.

So, the West is already splitting..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:46

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 36
Renee September 15, 2010 at 11:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 29
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 32
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:51

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 32
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 11:52

skadi, the point you deliberately ignore is that whilst women can preserve their genetic heritage at their choice and at the cost of others, you ask men to pay for others’ offspring with no rights to their own genetic legacy. do you see the double standard?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:55

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 42
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 11:55

namae nanka September 15, 2010 at 09:49

Corruption from wealth… meh

Its complex but I think its our economic system that makes old people low status young people higher status. Retired people aren’t productive in this system and young people are the consumers so… also their is the continual “changing landscape” and the need to adapt (value in youth).

I must say I have also thought about Feminism and wealth.Right now they think their privileges will be paid forever… Feminism definitely has the capacity of breaking the system and ending its own set of privileges but misandry can happen without wealth.

I think you should consider Switzerland. They are very wealthy and productive and I get the impression they relatively speaking they are male friendly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 46
evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2010 at 11:57

On the other, I like the idea of women being able to represent themselves and not having to go through a man to do so, or that their own voice is heard from the source – herself, especially when dealing with issues unique to women.

And what issues might those be?
And how are they unique to women?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 11:59

@Renee: speaking honestly, i cant imagine taking away womens’ suffrage. I do wish though that women as a group would grow up and act in the best interests of our cultures. its because i know they never will that i even entertain the idea of removing privileges like suffrage. but i am torn by what it means: an acceptance that most women are little more than children. that realisation sucks and i really wish i didnt have to accept it. but, it is what it is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:00

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 44
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 12:03

Skadi, you say so much pointless stuff… I don’t pity people with the choice. I do pity men who want the baby and love the baby when their “partner” rips their soul out with an abortion.

Also don’t deny the significant number of women who don’t give a crap about abortions, and have them numerous times.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 12:05

@skadi. no, no they can’t unless a woman allows it. women can lie about contraception, they can cheat on their partners if there is a dispute, they can even go to sperm banks. this applies to even the ugliest, most fat, most repulsive warpigs. men dont have the option unless a woman allows it, and they have no option to say “abort abort abort” if/when said warpig gets her wicked way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:07

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 42
SingleDad September 15, 2010 at 12:07

I used to want companionship but women told me for years that I was just “co-dependant”. I also value my relationship with my mother, but all the women I met called me a “mama’s boy”.

I no longer want companionship. Quite the opposite. I vigorously insist on being left alone.

When I have to interact I much prefer men as they stick to the business I hire them for like plumbing.

I work in a place that is mainly female so I literally hide in my office. I made it very clear to my female supervisor that I am doing this. She consistantly relates the negative things women in my workplace have to say to me. She is not reprimanding me, she just enjoys hurting me.

I need the money, I’m a single dad.

As far as womens suffrage. I think the MRM should stop saying their against women voting. I agree men are much more likley to have the vote removed than women.

I read, don’t quote me, that 1 of 6 men in the US have been in prison. I think that at least some of them, felon’s, lose the right to vote. So by promoting prisons for men women have already begun to take away our vote. And the soldiers that die in war also don’t get to vote any longer.

So, be careful my friends what you wish for.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 12:10

@skadi: also, i have demonstrated that the majority of women, even in the most feminist countries, even if they pay taxes, are not net contributors to tax. they are a drain on everyone else, especially young single men. you need to stop lying about this; even if you personally are an exception, most women arent.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:12

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 45
Anonymous September 15, 2010 at 12:16

Skadi September 15, 2010 at 11:46

I can see its useless… rewriting what I said, missing the point, only looking at extremes of the spectrum…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Lovekraft September 15, 2010 at 12:16

I think suffrage represents a failure of sorts of the rule of law.

Where the intent of a law is lost. In this case, democracy was intended in its purest form to advance an issue and restrict abuse. When suffrage and other inclusions appear, the intent is now to appeal to emotion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:20

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 52
Gunn September 15, 2010 at 12:21

oh, do you think so skadi, do you really think so? that gives me so much hope…

fuck off skank, i dont need your advice or your pity. save your pity for your future life with your cats.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 7
Gx1080 September 15, 2010 at 12:25

Dear god, people still listen to Skadi?

Of course that female suffrage was the cause of the election of idiot politicians. They gladly exchange privacy and liberty for security from Pimp Daddy State. Also, a voting bloc exclusively formed by men would not take shit from terrorists so easily.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 5
Snark September 15, 2010 at 12:29

Of course that female suffrage was the cause of the election of idiot politicians. They gladly exchange privacy and liberty for security from Pimp Daddy State.

James Fitzjames Stephen warned us this would happen in the 19th century. Check out his book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. His predictions have come horridly true much like Otto Weininger’s have.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Snark September 15, 2010 at 12:31

Summary from Amazon:

Impugning John Stuart Mill’s famous treatise, On Liberty, Stephen criticised Mill for turning abstract doctrines of the French Revolution into “the creed of a religion”. Only the constraints of morality and law make liberty possible, warned Stephen, and attempts to impose unlimited freedom, material equality, and an indiscriminate love of humanity will lead inevitably to coercion and tyranny. Liberty must be restrained by custom and tradition if it is to endure; equality must be limited to equality before the law if it is to be just; and fraternity must include actual men, not the amorphous mass of mankind, if it is to be real and genuine.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 12:33

“fondu, yea, I also feel really sorry for them, it is terrible, insensitive and above all it is wrong. But also feel sorry for the pregnant women that are abandoned or the loyal wives whose husbands leave when they get older. All these situations suck.”

I’m sure you do pity those men… however thy are still the ones with less choices.

By the way you can only use the “she was abandoned” argument once! Not she was abandoned so she has the right to abortion then say she has the right to child support when she choses to have the child.

I know your going to give some understanding type rhetoric now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 12:35

And if it is “wrong” as you say you can make abortion be something both parents must agree to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 41
Snark September 15, 2010 at 12:41

Nietzsche talked about this too..

Skadi, if you want to talk like you pretend you know anything about Nietzsche, there are plenty of student coffee houses that will welcome you with open arms. Why not go there instead of here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Avenger September 15, 2010 at 12:52

The director of the the “Amityville Horror” remake says he’s been subjected to a real life nightmare courtesy of an ex-wife who duped him into thinking he was a dad – for 17 years.

It wasn’t until Andrew Douglas took a paternity test last year that he found out Ameena Meer had been conning him into thinking he was the father of her daughter, court papers say – and now he wants his ex to pay through the nose for the heartbreaking lie.

The suit says Douglas met Meer in London in 1989, when he was working as a professional photographer and she was on a journalism assignment. Over the next three years, they became fornication buddies who “had infrequent sexual relations” when they’d meet up a few times a year.

Jeffrey Mayer/WireImage.com
Andrew Douglas, director of “The Amityville Horror.”
The relationship got more serious in 1992, when the London resident said Meer called him from her New York home and told him “she was pregnant with his child and asked him to marry her,” the suit says.

She told him she didn’t want to have the baby out-of-wedlock because “it would cause great shame and disgrace to her parents, both of whom were practicing Muslims.”

Douglas agreed, and they tied the knot in London on Aug. 18, 1992, the suit says.

Meer moved to the UK, and moved in with Douglas shortly after giving birth to the girl on Feb. 7, 1993. Douglas said he supported the pair financially, and was “very excited and nervous about becoming a father for the first time.”

He spent time “interacting and playing” with the baby girl, but wasn’t able to be home much because of work commitments, the suit said. Douglas and Meer’s relationship “deteriorated,” and by June, she announced she and her daughter were moving back to New York, and that “a price tag was attached” if he wanted to play any part in the girl’s life.

Douglas agreed to pay about $1500 a month in child support, and to take care of her schooling and insurance.

Douglas and the girl had “little physical contact during her early years because the parties resided on different continents,” which led Douglas to suffer “emotional distress, anxiety and depression” because he suffered “feelings of ‘failures’ as a father and because he did not feel the natural pull of fatherhood,” the suit says.

Those feelings were exacerbated by Meer, who at times would tell him “he was a bad father,” the suit says.

Meer remarried and had two more daughters with a man she’s since divorced. The suit says Douglas and the girl began to get closer around her tenth birthday, and their relationship got improved after he moved to California.

Douglas said he started to suspect Meer of trickery last summer, after his daughter asked him about his blood type, and he learned the chances were slim that he was her biological father. Meer tried to blow off his concerns, telling Douglas, “If you’re not [her[ father, it must be immaculate conception," the suit says.

Douglas's fears were confirmed last September, when he took a paternity test which showed "the probability of paternity is 0%," the suit says.

The filing says the girl's real biological father is "a British man, who unbeknownst to plaintiff at the time, was involved in a sexual relationship" with Meer. The writer had asked the man "to marry her when she was pregnant" but he refused, and "thereafter, knowing that [the girl] was not plaintiff’s child, [Meer], knowingly and with malice,” told Douglas the baby was his, the suit says.

Meer, who’s made headlines of late for helping to champion the controversial Islamic community center near ground zero, hasn’t exactly been repentant. She started demanding more money from Douglas – including demanding $27,000 for her back rent and $9000 to redo her kitchen – and has been keeping the daughter away from him, telling her he doesn’t want to be her dad, the suit says.

The suit says Douglas still loves the girl, and wants to support her and be her father – but he wants Meer to pay for the hundreds of thousands in child support he’s paid over the years, as well as money for his emotional damages.

Asked about the financial dispute, Meer told The Post, “If he wants to be her father, he should provide for her. Isn’t that what’s fair?” Asked about whether she’d intentionally lied to Douglas about the girl’s parentage, she said, “I can’t really talk anymore.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/amityville_director_duped_by_ex_4LkE3QAO8LyxPVQJZLTLrI#comments#ixzz0zdAZ0aQx

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 45
Anonymous Reader September 15, 2010 at 12:54

Skadi, the topic is women voting. Your pet topics are not relevant. Your hunger for attention is not interesting. Understand?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 6
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 12:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 40
Anonymous September 15, 2010 at 13:00

Why not go there instead of here.

Because there she only has a chance of getting attention, here it’s pretty much guaranteed. Enough with the ridiculousness already, will you guys stop feeding the troll? She thrives off of it, get it?

@ Gunn and Renee. Female suffrage, I hear you both and I think it blows rightly that the very few responsible women have to take a back seat to the scores of entitled princesses who have ruined such choice with their selfishness and short-sightedness. Not all women can’t see past their noses, but it’s a sad fact that there is such a huge amount which do.

Gotta feel for the few women who do side with Men in this time as they watch their ‘sisters’ piss away their hard fought freedom and the future may affect them negatively too. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4
Gx1080 September 15, 2010 at 13:19

BTW, I ask because Skadi, aka DesiPUA, aka BagLady has been banned from several of the author’s blogs. And for good reasons.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Augenblick September 15, 2010 at 13:35

Skadi is just anoying and you are deviating because of her.

Here in Brazil we will have our first comunist female president, and are not only the women who are in support, my country is a country of pussy worshippers, Marina who is another candidate will soon surpass the one I´m voting for, Serra the most conservative “leftist”, since we do not have another kind of politician.
I think that all the western society is most all instances rotten, natural rights were already thought by rosseau, and they are the base of our constitution, they were corrupted because they are too wide like in every other PLACE IN THE WORLD.
I see the problem as we men are too focused on pussy, because since we are children we are seeing it on T.V. this new generations is getting it from the internet, they are all addicted, and will be most manginas, since they eat anything that they are fed up, sure I see MRM growing, and it is growing because we are taking the stand to talk, and the human beeing is a political animal.
That is the solution, as I see, even to women like Madeline Dahlgren could there be a candidate too, someone not a reactionaire or a conservateur, but someone from the MRM who could express our thoughts, I think, like Obama worked with his “merchandised” change, many men and women as soon as accostumed (and it is spreading quickly as you can see in coments in most of the feminist media), to our ideas that are coese and logical soon we all would find a large electorate (as I’m not from there, but I see even men here think alike, since voting is a anonynmous right we cannot be shmed to not vote in our candidate. Politics is a men’s thing, and that is where we lost our power, and that is where we can get our power back.

Vote Uncle Elmer for senate or whatever you have there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
namae nanka September 15, 2010 at 13:41

Switzerland might make for a good study with regards to their “male chauvinsim” or an exception to prove the rule? religion?
OT, they allowed women suffrage only in 1971, so maybe a decade or two more is needed, but already their divorce rate is quite high,
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/06/blank/key/06/03.html

and their brith rate is pretty low. They seem to be out on the same path.

“Its complex but I think its our economic system that makes old people low status young people higher status. Retired people aren’t productive in this system and young people are the consumers so”

yeah, but the youth should be in possession of wealth. a society where it takes time to build wealth would keep the youth in check both economically and morally.

“I must say I have also thought about Feminism and wealth.Right now they think their privileges will be paid forever”

also since women are more risk-averse, it’s during the periods of stability that they would ask for more or move into new fields of work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 13:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 37
Lovekraft September 15, 2010 at 13:52

Anyone else notice this skadi character seems to like to just type words into her computer as though it’s an anaesthetic, regardless of how off-topic or opinionated her comments are?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4
Bob September 15, 2010 at 13:56

@ Elusive Wapiti

I see the point you make about the consequences of allowing women to vote and it’s destruction of natural rights; if there was any respect for the Constitution, that would not be an issue. (Or at least less of one). However, I agree that it has been trampled by liberal voters, particularly women. It may well be untenable.

As for the natural rights/looter’s rights thing (hate Ayn Rand, like that term), well… I suppose I’m too much of an idealist to let myself fall into that line of thinking, even if the world around me does so. My main concern is to make MRA arguments defensible in a larger, public, mainstream forum, not just to be correct, or solely acceptable among like minds. This adversarial approach to government-granted “rights” cannot last forever.

@ SingleDad

As long as most of the cops are male (you know, the guys who make bored wives and psychotic girlfriends feel so tough), men will still get to vote. Cops won’t enforce the laws if that’s taken away. It’d be a free-for-all for men everywhere. Women don’t need to take it away, anyhow; politicians cater to them anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 14:00

Yes but we fed the troll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
misterb September 15, 2010 at 14:16

I hate to say this.

Women have been given too much power. And what have they done with they squander it. Create unnecessary laws. If women didn’t vote, the country would be different. There wouldn’t have been same sex marriage. Men wouldn’t be cheated out of their own homes and children. There would have been a lot more native born people here. No abortion.

But the pooch had been screwed to death. We live in a grim world. It’s the price that society pays for female suffrage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Alte September 15, 2010 at 14:21

On the other, I like the idea of women being able to represent themselves and not having to go through a man to do so, or that their own voice is heard from the source – herself, especially when dealing with issues unique to women.

That’s the whole point. Women make their decisions to benefit themselves, with no regard to the consequences to other human beings. We are unfit to have the vote because we are narcissists. Sad, but true.

Wanting their voices heard? You mean like:

Attention! Attention! Attention! Look at me! I’ve got the vote! I can take your stuff!

Do we really need that, as a nation?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 4
john halder September 15, 2010 at 14:23

a little off the subject ( all these articles are preaching to the choir anyway) except i’m not a neo-con like a lot on here are.
but anyway! im back on twitter as : fuck_911
i’m recruiting followers!
their are a ton of feminist groups, individuals on there, be nice if more like me were to challenge their stranglehold on twitter.
on a side note, women will vote for any female candidate it seems, even karl rove blasted odonell, wow.
on our way to ww3 under next lady prez! yay!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10
Rebel September 15, 2010 at 14:35

@Skadi:

Please confirm that you are not a typical representative of the female gender, will you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
TFH September 15, 2010 at 14:39

Strike Force time :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Women-sue-Goldman-for-alleged-rb-2219314901.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

Everyone, please go there and comment on the bogus Goldman Sachs ‘gender bias’ lawsuit.

All sorts of manginas cheering on this extortion. Go there and fight back!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 14:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 36
TFH September 15, 2010 at 14:40

Alte,

Women make their decisions to benefit themselves, with no regard to the consequences to other human beings. We are unfit to have the vote because we are narcissists. Sad, but true.

Alte has just become my favorite person of the day.

But I have to suspect that you are not really a woman (or at least a woman under 50 born in the West)….

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5
Amax September 15, 2010 at 14:43

Yes but we fed the troll.

Then for the love of God stop feeding the troll!!

On another note, what a rock and a hard place we find ourselves in regarding this issue. I’m with Gunn that I wouldn’t want to revoke a woman’s suffrage rights as there are some women who are responsible and actually operate with some ethics in their lives and their decision making. It’s a shame that the very few responsible women there are have to face when watching the overwhelming amount of their sisters pissing away their responsibility and making all women look bad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 14:51

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 40
3DShooter September 15, 2010 at 14:51

This seems like one of those topics, like abortion, that can go on endlessly.

However, if any group should be removed from the voting roles it is government employees. We shouldn’t be letting the recipients of government largess vote on whether to impose it on the rest of society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
TFH September 15, 2010 at 14:59

Skadi,

99% of women in the West do not think like her

You have just admitted that 99% of women are not suitable for voting rights.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 15, 2010 at 15:01

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 37
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 15:17

@Alte

“That’s the whole point. Women make their decisions to benefit themselves, with no regard to the consequences to other human beings. We are unfit to have the vote because we are narcissists. Sad, but true.”

I would agree that is part and parcel to the larger picture. That has everything to do with why things are so messed up for men right now. I’m not certain but I think women can be allowed to vote its just that society and men especially have to adapt. I think its ok to have women vote while men recognize a level of inherent selfishness to women’s vote and men gain awareness of themselves as a class. I think that could reset the balance of power. In effect women would know they have something to essentially wage war on men (along with manginas), and men would start self advocating.

Of course that is alot of work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 15:21

correction. It should read

know they have something to lose in what is essentially…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Snark September 15, 2010 at 15:23

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312345/Nurse-seized-dying-mans-phone-called-glass-water.html

A man lies dying in hospital, asking for a glass of water. Female nurse not only refuses to get it for him, she confiscates his phone so he cannot call for help.

By the time his wife gets there, he has died (this was not expected). The nurse shows no sympathy at all, and get this – she says to the new widow that the (now dead) man’s pleas for help “could be seen as harassment.”

The abuser’s name is Caroline Lowe. Follow link for picture.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price September 15, 2010 at 15:33

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312345/Nurse-seized-dying-mans-phone-called-glass-water.html

A man lies dying in hospital, asking for a glass of water. Female nurse not only refuses to get it for him, she confiscates his phone so he cannot call for help.

By the time his wife gets there, he has died (this was not expected). The nurse shows no sympathy at all, and get this – she says to the new widow that the (now dead) man’s pleas for help “could be seen as harassment.”

The abuser’s name is Caroline Lowe. Follow link for picture.

-Snark

Funny you should bring this up. The nursing home situation has been on my mind lately. If this guy hadn’t been a healthcare critic of some importance, this story probably wouldn’t have gone outside the room he died in.

These kinds of things happen to old men (and old women) all the time. And who do you think is responsible for most elder abuse?

Hint: the same people responsible for most child abuse and neglect — I’d put money on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 2
armorknight September 15, 2010 at 15:51

While feminism and women are largely responsible for the collapse of the West, men had a role to play as well. Feminism would have never taken root and grown if it weren’t for the scores of beta males who just gave in to the demands of women and feminists. We men should have put our foots down and said “No”, but we gave in to the pussy power. Thanks to that, we have the situation we’re in now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
armorknight September 15, 2010 at 15:55

Another major problem is that many Western men have become corrupted by feminist dogma as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Snark September 15, 2010 at 15:56

Welmer,

I agree.

In fact, I nearly added my own comment along those lines, but decided to let the story stand by itself.

We get these stories frequently in the UK – a patient (usually elderly) literally being left to die of thirst in their own feces and urine.

And female nurses – which is almost always is – being utterly callous towards them, with no regret once the patient has died.

Do they get punished for their homicidal neglect?

Nah.

They might lose their licence.

No criminal record.

Oh well.

It happens a lot, and I assumed it was confined to the UK and our socialised healthcare system. Well, that’s what you guys in the States have to look forward to. Yep, because if this kind of shit happened in a free market then that provider would quickly go bust. But because it’s taxpayer-funded, they can just go on and on making these mistakes.

Funny that this has come out on the same day as a Telegraph piece about public sector workers being overpaid, and the idea still floating around that they are underpaid has been debunked as a myth – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8003324/Myth-of-the-underpaid-public-sector-worker.html

Oh, and public sector workers aren’t really ‘workers’ so to speak, since they spend most of their time slacking off or taking sick leave – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8003478/The-trouble-with-the-public-sector-is-bone-idle-staff.html

I become more libertarian by the day. You know what else is going on our side of the pond? Trade union wankers threatening massive strike action because of proposed cuts. These people don’t realise that you can’t spend money that DOESN’T EXIST. This is the inevitable outcome of decades of state expansion. When you expand the public sector, you shrink the tax base from the private sector. Simple fucking logic. These morons want to expand the public sector ever further and shrink the tax base even more, and don’t see how this might end up collapsing.

And now it’s collapsing, they’re all butthurt about losing services (paid for with money expropriated from private sector workers) and are demanding that cuts don’t happen. Despite the fact that THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

They’re like children. Socialists, just like feminists, crying for Big Daddy Government to make everything okay. Absolutely petrified of the thought that they might have to stand on their own two feet, develop character, pay one’s dues, that sort of thing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
Snark September 15, 2010 at 16:01

Women demand free drinks and dinners …

Feminists demand free child maintenance and alimony …

Socialists demand free public services …

Great, now who’s going to pay for all these things you absolutely must have for free? Right – let’s make working people pay for it all by hiking up taxes.

Okay, so now all this great free stuff is dependent upon the earning power of people (mostly men) in the private sector. So, what next … let’s put increasing numbers of regulations on the private sector that make it more difficult for people and businesses to make money.

Stroke of fucking genius.

Progressivism in a nutshell.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
Alte September 15, 2010 at 16:03

I think most nursing-home employees are women. Ironically, I know a woman (a distant cousin) who works in a nursing home, while her own mother languishes in another nursing home.

TFH,

Excuse me, B&G here. I just post as Alte because I switched to that on my own blog, and everyone keeps complaining when I change my handle. Does this mean you aren’t mad at me, anymore? Can we type and make up?

Here you say that women shape the character of men, while others have said that mothers aren’t even that important as men grow older (or something like that).

Mothers used to be more important and influential than they are now. Women gave up their familial influence in exchange for the vote. I suppose you could compare mothers then with homeschooling mothers now, in regards to influence. Most modern mothers hardly see their own children, so they cannot claim to be such a strong influence on them (although they might still be the single strongest influence).

Female suffrage, I hear you both and I think it blows rightly that the very few responsible women have to take a back seat to the scores of entitled princesses who have ruined such choice with their selfishness and short-sightedness.

That’s the ironic thing. A repeal of suffrage would appeal to those “very few responsible women” the most. It wouldn’t shock them, as they are already discussing it seriously. I’d be grateful to give up the vote if all of the Girl Power types had to give up theirs, as well. We might be an exception, but the exception merely proves the rule. We stand out so glaringly because the rest of them are so completely incompetent to vote. And we are well aware of that.

That’s the whole point.

No, a further point is that women make up an absolute majority of voters, and will do so in any democratic system with female suffrage because women make up a majority of adults and have lower incarceration rates. Women rule through the ballot box through sheer numbers. Every election is a contest between groups of women, who vote according to whether they have a husband and how much they trust or like him. That is why giving women the vote means that every politician is going to be focused on pleasing and attracting them, and little else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 16:05

Unrelated: Here you go Mr. Price aka Welmer. Women don’t even have to be employed with the sports team for feminist lawyers to attack. This woman says she will not complain but the feminist lawyers insist. Women sued in order to get access to male locker rooms and now the rabid feminists want to sue on a woman’s behalf.

This warrants a discussion here at the Spearheaded.

http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/article/5792866/jets_are_finding_out_the_hard_knocks.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Alte September 15, 2010 at 16:09

I become more libertarian by the day.

You and my husband both. Welcome. Come inside. Have a cookie and some tea. Put your feet up. Make yourself comfortable.

It’ll be a while, but perhaps not too long of a while. :-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 16:12

MORE HERE: Men literally have no male spaces left. Women have insisted on inclusion in ALL male spaces. Not even a men’s locker room is safe from women!

http://www.businessinsider.com/business-lessons-from-inez-sainz-the-sexually-harassed-female-sports-caster-2010-9

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 16:23

namae nanka September 15, 2010 at 13:41

I hopefully the Swiss take a good look at Feminism. At least their boys are still in college, then Australia has that too but…

As for this, “also since women are more risk-averse, it’s during the periods of stability that they would ask for more or move into new fields of work.”

Do you find that pattern uniquely in women? I tend to really dislike reducing situations to high risk low risk behavior. Aside from considering all the other variables risk can’t be defined simply. The aspects to risk are job security, money, and status in a changing market while your needs change also.

In regards to wall street and buisness when are you taking risks and when are you just adapting to changes. I don’t know what people mean exactly when they say men take more risks. If you don’t make moves you lose, like poker, or you may be betting that you can ride something out without changing. When people talk about risk are they considering pot odds.

I also know women can be careless/wreckless which can come from selfishness (something women do have). I also know of a study showing that those administered testosterone played more fairly and less aggressive. I discussed it here. In short I need studies for statements of men acting “risky” because I know it depends on the circumstances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Laura Grace Robins September 15, 2010 at 16:27

Well done on the article!

“Try suggesting to a typical God fearing, flag waving, Republican and Tea Party conservative that giving the vote to women was a bad idea, and watch him recoil in horror like a vampire looking at a cross.”

Isn’t that the truth. All I do in my articles on this matter is try to point out the other side of the story. The side that a lot of women did not want the vote. But that’s the thing, I’m not suppose to point that side out.

I highly recommend the 1912 book, “Woman Adrift: The Menace of Suffragism”. I am doing a series on it right now.

Alte,

On the other, I like the idea of women being able to represent themselves and not having to go through a man to do so, or that their own voice is heard from the source – herself, especially when dealing with issues unique to women.

That’s the whole point. Women make their decisions to benefit themselves, with no regard to the consequences to other human beings. We are unfit to have the vote because we are narcissists. Sad, but true.

I agree. I will add that in marriage (Christian) the two become one. The is no longer two voices to vote with, but one. I think this is what the anti-suffrage women of the day tried to get across. This should not be that big of a deal if you marry someone who shares your views.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Alte September 15, 2010 at 16:38

Absolutely, Laura! I had hoped that you would chime in on this one.

Yes, I usually discuss how I will vote with my husband (for example, in regards to the recent primaries). I know a lot of married women who do that, in fact. They don’t see themselves as having interests that are separate from their husband’s, so why shouldn’t they discuss politics with him?

Since women make up a majority of voters, one could even say that the family’s vote has merely transferred from the husband to the wife. Unfortunately, with a declining number of wives versus single or divorced women, the husband’s influence will diminish. This, in fact, hurts the remaining wives. The unmarried women can merely vote to extract things from the husbands, without having to carry out any wifely duties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
clarence September 15, 2010 at 17:01

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 26
fondueguy September 15, 2010 at 17:01

Alte September 15, 2010 at 16:38

Your idealizing wives…

Also its not just about the family vote and single woman vote. (both married and single women watch operah’s BS and vote on women’s issues anyways). What is important is that men have their own issues and they need to be aware of them and vote on them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 17:22

The problem with women voting is thE they vote along separate and secular lines of representation by gender. There was .ever supposed to be secular representation by gender, race, region or class within government under the Constitution of the United States.

The problem is that it sets us at odds with each other socially, politically and economically. It does so against the very factors which ordinarily facilitate the felicity of men and women in the social, political and economic factors which form the family. Women seek the State to replace the role that the family serves but more importantly the role of men and fathers to the family and as a NECESSITY to the mated pair bond.

The idea behind feminism and “female liberation” is to in fact make the family no longer necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Paradoxotaur September 15, 2010 at 17:27

“That is why giving women the vote means that every politician is going to be focused on pleasing and attracting them, and little else.”

Until they self-marginalize, then a politician won’t care. For a non-sex-based example, look at California. Reliably leftist Democrat for several election cycles. The federal government doesn’t have to curry favor with residents of The Golden State, Democratic representatives don’t need to be responsive to their constituency (what would it take to get them to not vote Democrat?), and Republicans have largely written California off (what would it take to get them to vote Republican?). Until recently.

Back on-topic, several post-election analysis looked at the effect men’s votes had, particularly independents. When men’s votes are the balance tippers, politicians will curry favor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel September 15, 2010 at 17:32

RamZ – Easy Bake Anne – dude, you are a genius!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 17:34

On Women in the Workforce:
“Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance.” “Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier.” -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 17:38

“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” -Frederick Engels

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” -Karl Marx.

Here is a timeline of Feminist thinkers: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S5lUc3k3gvI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/tVx9cUvE_dc/s1600-h/ScreenShot015.bmp

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Red0660 September 15, 2010 at 17:54

Here is what feminism sought to accomplish. The 1960′s was infact the Cultural Marxist revolution:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-3YDQmToI/AAAAAAAAAXg/hsDwfPiYY5s/s1600-h/fertility.jpg

My country is well on it’s way to collapse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Alte September 15, 2010 at 18:01

Clarence,

You are conversing with someone who has been hounded off of this site numerous times, in the past.

And it is certainly very shocking that my religion should influence my politics. I’m very backward that way, I suppose. What is the point of a religion that effects your opinion? Religion should be opinion-neutral. Everybody knows that.

What is important is that men have their own issues and they need to be aware of them and vote on them.

I’m sorry to inform you, but men’s issues will only come to the table if wives take an interest in them (which they slowly are), or we repeal female suffrage. Otherwise, the numbers just don’t add up. Not even with balance-tipping.

Here’s the practical reason why female suffrage doesn’t make good sense:
When men vote in favor of their own economic interests, the women attached to them benefit. When women vote in favor of their own economic interests, they are more inclined to divorce their husband, so the men do not similarly benefit. Money should flow primarily through the husband, then everyone gets enough and the marriages are stable.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 11
Renee September 15, 2010 at 18:07

Alte,

Wanting their voices heard? You mean like:

Attention! Attention! Attention! Look at me! I’ve got the vote! I can take your stuff!

Do we really need that, as a nation?

I would like to think that it’s not as simple at that or rather not just that lol…..but hey, maybe it is that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Clarence September 15, 2010 at 19:04

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 21
KARMA MRA MGTOW September 15, 2010 at 19:22

More female violence down-under.

Woman drove away after ‘kneecapping’ boyfriend
Adrian Lowe
September 16, 2010 – 10:10AM

A woman who shot her boyfriend of 10 years in the knee wanted to avoid having her life controlled, a court has heard.

Rebecca Kim shot her boyfriend William Norden with a .38 five-shot revolver on April 5 while the couple was stopped on the side of a road in Keilor, the Melbourne Magistrates Court was yesterday told.

Mr Norden got out to get help and flagged down a car on the Calder Freeway after Kim drove off, later handing herself in to police.

Kim, 47, of Kealba, pleaded not guilty to 17 charges, including intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury, unlawful assault and using an unregistered handgun and was committed to stand trial.

In a committal hearing, Mr Norden said he was surprised at Kim’s anger.

“It was like it was real casual, we were just happy talking, there was no fight,” Mr Norden said in his statement tendered to the court. “She was upset and angry that I have destroyed her life . . . I started panicking thinking I could could die here.”

Under cross-examination, he denied assertions from defence counsel Luke Barker that he had repeatedly harassed Kim.

“You said if she wanted to go, you would destroy her, didn’t you,” Mr Barker asked. Mr Norden denied he said that and denied that the gun Kim used was his own.

When Kim was interviewed by police, she said Mr Norden was controlling and had continually harassed her.

“I think about going to break his legs. That’s why I shot him,” she said.

“He just ignore me and I told him, ‘That’s called a warning shots’ [sic] . . . He run away so that’s enough warning for him. And just tell him keep away from me and stop f— around with me, you know.”

Police claim that Kim had an extra three rounds of ammunition hidden in a tampon box in her handbag.

Kim did not apply for bail. Magistrate Peter Mealy remanded her to appear at the Victorian County Court in November.

KARMA says Kim is a lair, and the stupid man should never go near her again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 September 15, 2010 at 19:23

Thanks for reminding me:

Although the blame is mainly on the ugly-dykes, I mean, suffragetes, the full blown explosion was purely caused by the mangina-tastic, too-pussy-to-fight-in-Vietmam, Free-love-Kool-Aid-drinkers Hippies.

I mean, who the fuck organizes the massive stoned party known as Woodstock while their country is on a fucking war? Pussies, that’s who.

Also, Free Love is a scam based on having women too drunk and stoned to say no.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8
Beltain September 15, 2010 at 19:32

Assuming the damage is not beyond repair (which I think it is) perhaps one way of dealing with it is to go back to a land ownership to vote type arrangement. In other words make it to where it is one household one vote and you have to have a paying stake in the system ie: not be on some form of government assistance in order to actually vote.

This would go a long way to canceling out a number of selfish female votes and then the sky is the limit after that. Not to mention put an end to politicians buying votes and the danger of voting themselves money as we were warned of.

I personally like the land ownership idea we originally started with however.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 15, 2010 at 20:19

Clarence:
You claim I’m using a category error, I don’t particularly care if I am.

So logic and basic reasoning are things you don’t care about, is that correct? Cool by me.

My argument would easily be that the American people have had such crap to vote for most of the last 30 to 40 years due to the dominance of the two party system that trying to blame women for just about any social ill that relies on the electorate outside of abortion (and quite a few of them don’t support that) is ridiculous.

If you bothered to read the article you should be able to determine that it isn’t about the last 30 to 40 years, but about the last 90, and how societies (note the plural) have changed as a result of women’s suffrage. If you bothered to read my reply, you’d note I specifically cited the support for a certain political party in post-Weimar Germany that didn’t turn out so well over the course of 15 or so years.

People are taking arguments from ancient societies which they only half understand and trying to apply them in a far different sexual and economic environment.

Evolutionary psychology tells me that there isn’t anything different about the sexual environment, the same rather hard-wired responses are at work. The Romans had practical birth control. Glubb points out the economic situation is similar to past events. So it appears that if anyone only half understands the past, it is you.

My moral stance is that anyone who can vote responsibly ought to be able to vote irrespective of sex.

Then your position is that sex is merely a social construct? Even though every day science provides more facts refuting that Marxist notion? Oh, and please define “responsibly”.

One might disagree, but consider this: If MRA becomes synonymous with removing the vote from females MRA will never get anywhere. So I’d say mine is the more practical stance.

I don’t see anyone seriously proposing that the franchise be restricted in the current political structure, for the obvious reason that it would be impossible to do so. What I see is an article that is engaged in “failure analysis”, taking as given that a great deal of damage has been done to Western civilization in the last 100+ years and seeking to explore one of the root causes. I don’t see any claim that all the ills of the world can be laid at the doorstep of female suffrage, but rather a cogently reasoned discussion that suffrage is a source of problems, not the source.

Now, it may be that we should institute literacy tests or some sort of extra citizenship requirments for the franchise. I’m up for considering some of that stuff, but I’m not up to being shamed for disagreeing with a contention I find unpersuasive.

In the future, there may be great, sweeping changes in both economic and political structures. If we can learn from mistakes of the last 100 or more years, perhaps some of those structures could be designed in a more sane manner, so as to avoid screwing things up further. That’s where I see this discussion leading: “How did we get where we are, and if we could do things all over again, what should we do differently?”

Your mileage may vary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
IurnMan83 September 15, 2010 at 20:24

Might I suggest to those who do not perscribe to certain religions to hold of slandering someone for expressing said faith? Myself, for example, follow the Torah (no, i’m not Jewish) and that literally expresses its self in everything that I do. I cannot live a day without it. It influences how I dress, whether I shave or not, what food I eat, and how I treat other men. It also influences my views on men and women in their proper places. I chose to live this way, not because of some brainwashing, but because after much internal debate, I found it to be truth. I will not berate anyone on this forum for what their religion is because Faith is not some separate thing that you can disassociate from your life. For many it IS their life.

And on the topic of women’s sufferage, there’s no turning back now. What’s done is done. It wasn’t a good thing, and we can all see the shit that happens today is a result of that decision to allow women to vote. I do agree with some of the comments here about meen being more free today, in some aspects. I’m not bound to a woman if I chose not to be. I don’t have to marry, I don’t have to have sex, I don’t have to have children. Heck, I could live out in the woods if I so choose; or start a blackmarket business that make more money than I would ever earn at a wage-whore job. I have that choice because I live by the creed and law that I see fit. If Big Guv’ment wants to put me in jail, I am still a free man!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Clarence September 15, 2010 at 20:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 24
LaughOrCry September 15, 2010 at 21:03

As others have said, women’s suffrage is one genie that ain’t ever going back in the bottle, at least unless or until there is complete societal collapse and *nobody* gets to vote. Democratic voting is now seen as a basic human right, and denial of that right is “oppression” (so does that mean that in the historical past I, as a non-property owning and thus non-voting white male, would have been oppressed?).

Slightly OT: a few weeks ago I saw the British film Harry Brown, in which some elderly men (including our eponymous hero) are victims of disaffected, street-rioting youths. The film portrays the youths – mostly young men of course – as essentially bad, perpetrators of evil. At the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart I couldn’t help seeing those young men as victims in their own way: victims of a society that gives them rights and freedoms, but doesn’t see any worth or value in them (and needless to say, most real young disaffected men come from fatherless homes).

200 years ago many of those young Englishmen would have been conscripted into the Royal Navy, effectively becoming the property of the Crown. They would have been sent off to fight wars for the benefit of the Empire, and some would have been wounded or killed.
Denial of their rights notwithstanding, was that not perhaps a better use of a nation’s young men who these days are likely to end up dead, in prison or simply wasting their lives away anyway? At least they, those who survived, could look back on their lives and say, “I helped build this Empire, I made a contribution”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Anonymous September 15, 2010 at 22:08

Gx1080

Also, a voting bloc exclusively formed by men would not take shit from terrorists so easily.

Outstanding point.
Also what would our great grandfathers think of a victory mosque at ground zero?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
trent13 September 15, 2010 at 22:28

In a society where the man is the head of the household, not only is there no practical point in having women vote, it’s detrimental to the organization and hierarchy of the family. Madeline Dahlgren points this out superbly, thanks so much for bringing her to light; reading her is like reading a beautiful breakdown of my (and so many others I know) understanding of patriarchy.

“Women’s rights” are the biggest load of crap – I hope one day they are all rescinded.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2010 at 22:53

A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies instantly. The boy, in critical condition, is rushed to the nearest hospital for emergency surgery.
The surgeon looks at the child aghast and says, “I can’t operate on him! He’s my own son!”

Can you solve this puzzle?
If you can’t then pat yourself on the back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Migu September 15, 2010 at 23:41

I’m glad to see people are finally realizing, the only winning move in US national politics is not to play. The only way to truly withdraw your consent is by not agreeing to abide by the will of a “vote”

The only way to do that is by not voting nationally. Grassroots, local action, leaderless movements of logic always topple the centralized structure. Reform is useless. Ignore Washington, build a coalition with your neighbors.

A good starting point is to elect an arbitrator for neighborly disputes, instead of relying on city/county street gangs to beat up anyone that annoys you. Ignore Washington, and they will be put into a tough position. Quit their jobs, or give up the facade they are duly elected officials, and admit they are petty feudal warlords.

As long as the sheep line up at the federal ballot box though, it’ll be business as usual.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Migu September 15, 2010 at 23:46

Beat me if you will evil empire but I’m spilling the beans.

Mommy is the surgeon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Carpe Libertatum September 15, 2010 at 23:47

The way we respond to the natural rights argument for women’s suffrage is by rebutting the idea of democracy. From a libertarian perspective, the best writers critical of democracy that I can think of would be Herbert Spencer in part 2 of his Principles of Ethics (there is a chapter called “Political Rights – So-Called” in that book). Spencer supported women’s suffrage in his youth (Social Statics), but by his later years he had matured and realized what expanding suffrage would lead to (the older Spencer wrote articles with titles such as “Re-barbarization” and “The Coming Slavery”). Spencer supported the Liberty and Property Defence League, an organization that opposed women’s suffrage and socialism in Britain.

The other libertarian thinker I can think of who has written incisive criticisms of democracy would be Hans Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe is the author of Democracy: The God that Failed (the title references an anti-Communist book called The God that Failed). If I remember correctly, he once pointed out that Switzerland, although it was the first country to adopt universal men’s suffrage, was the last western country to adopt women’s suffrage and that it began going downhill after adopting women’s suffrage.

If one accepts the “logic” of democracy and regards democracy as the end rather than as a means to an end, one has no good arguments against women suffrage or even against “suffrage” for 5-year olds. If people have a right to vote regardless of their competence, then surely the typical child in kindergarten should be just as qualified to vote as any adult. We all know what would happen if kid suffrage were to be enacted.

Democracy is not a good idea to begin with, since it encourages an increase in time preference (present-orientation) and since democratic rulers are merely allowed to run a country for a short period of time (and thus have incentives to get as much as they can immediately, rather than governing responsibly and trying to increase the value of the nation). Under all governments, there is inevitably a taxpayer class and a tax consumer class. Democracy works fairly well when voting is restricted to the taxpayers, but once tax consumers are allowed to vote and become the majority of the voters, they will only vote themselves greater and greater benefits at the expense of the taxpaying class (since they benefit from a tax increase and are harmed by a tax decrease). Female suffrage is a bad thing because universal suffrage democracy is a bad thing. If we are to have a democracy (and Hoppe has good arguments for abolishing democracy altogether), voting privileges should be restricted to those men and women (primarily, of course, men) who actually produce wealth and everybody who has a vested interest in expanding government power should ideally be denied voting privileges. That way, those who are granted voting privileges can secure the rights of everybody and prevent the acquisition of illegitimate privileges by anybody.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
LaughOrCry September 16, 2010 at 00:58

It’s a basic tenet of capitalism that a company’s employees don’t get to vote on its running, only its owners – the shareholders. When the workers get to decide how to run things that’s known as communism… you can see where I’m going with this…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
JFP September 16, 2010 at 01:01

I’ve found it quite amusing watching all the NOW types chant in protests about “my body, my choice” when it comes to abortion. They want those old farts in congress to keep their hands off her body! Yet, they then turn around and cheer as a bunch of old farts pass healthcare laws that gives the government major control of their bodies. Oh, but the government would never repeal abortion laws or control reproduction healthcare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
gwallan September 16, 2010 at 04:03

@Carpe Libertatum…

Taking away my vote will result in my withdrawal of consent to that government to govern ME. I will not obey their laws, pay their taxes or conform in any manner to their requirements. Not negotiable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
namae nanka September 16, 2010 at 04:55

+1 to Carpe Libertatum that democracy sucks, and
“Feminization of democracy is a tautology.”

evilwhitemalempire
Can you solve this puzzle?

The boy’s mother once had a longer than usual ob/gyn session at the hospital.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Migu September 16, 2010 at 05:30

There is also Hans-Herman Hoppe’s

“Democracy The God That Failed”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Migu September 16, 2010 at 05:34

Gwallan,

Why not just withdraw your consent now and stop voting?
Nationally anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 16, 2010 at 05:37

Clarence, I don’t know if you’re deliberately being obtuse, but you have not in fact provided what you believe to be moral grounds for suffrage. Merely stating that ‘universal suffrage’ is a right is nonsense, as it doesn’t factor in groups we exclude such as children.

If one were to re-examine the basis for suffrage, and the rights and responsibilities of a government and the powers it is capable of exercising over its people, its not at all clear that universal suffrage is the best way.

If a government’s power is not constrained, then democracy can devolve into a farce of mob rule. This version of democracy is not how democracy was originally intended to be; in an ideal world, democracy requires a process of compromise between people where no one’s basic rights are compromised due to the other parties. This immediately becomes difficult, as one then has to consider what the ‘basic rights’ being protected are, and the extent to which the state can force compromise or outright override rights.

The biggest problem we have in today’s western democracies is representation without responsibility. We allow people who do not meaningfully contribute to a nations wealth to decide how that wealth should be spent (squandered). We allow people who are at no risk of being drafted to war a vote on whether to go to war. We allow voting blocs (women, old people, ethnic minorities) to enforce their rights through a tyranny of democracy by taking away others’ rights merely because they are outnumbered or do not constitute the ‘swing’ element of the vote.

Our political parties claim huge differences in what they do, but in reality they are made up of the same types of people who have gone to the same schools and share very similar views of the world. If my ‘choice’ is a party that will tax me at 33% and spend 38% of gdp vs. one that will tax me at 38% and spend 45% of gdp, this isn’t really a meaningful choice; however, its what passes for democracy in our countries these days.

Libertarianism, whilst almost universally denigrated by the clowns in power politically today, is a questioning of the extent of power the state wields over the lives of the individuals that make up its people. It is perfectly compatible with the loss of suffrage, provided that the state’s power to affect our lives is dramatically curtailed. If the nation’s government focuses purely on areas that are in the ‘common interest’ only (such as defence) and has very little power to coerce in other areas (the economy, education, welfare/charity, healthcare) then it would be possible to dramatically scale back its size.

However, the sheeple used to our current set up have been so brainwashed by their political masters that they can’t even seem to see that their vote is largely decorative, and has little or no impact on how the country is practically governed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 16, 2010 at 06:31

No, Clarence, you are being stubborn and willful, reveling in category error over and over again. I just finished 10,000 year explosion. There’s quite a bit in it on intelligence, but little on the differences between male and female brains, as I’m sure you recall. You say that because you know some women who vote in a way that you consider responsible (once again refusing to define your term) therefore all women should have the vote. Echoing others, I will point out that I know a few 12 year old children who could vote responsibly, therefore by your “logic” all 12 year olds should vote. Once again, category error. If you do not understand the fallacy, do a web search and learn about it.

Basically, your stance is “Voting for women is right, because I say so”. This is not a logical argument. This is an emotional statement. Could you try logic sometime?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 16, 2010 at 06:35

“While feminism and women are largely responsible for the collapse of the West, men had a role to play as well. Feminism would have never taken root and grown if it weren’t for the scores of beta males who just gave in to the demands of women and feminists. We men should have put our foots down and said “No”, but we gave in to the pussy power. Thanks to that, we have the situation we’re in now.”

True, but your verbs are in past sense and this happens in the present. This should have read:

“We men SHOULD PUT our foots down and SAY “No”, but we GIVE in to the pussy power.”

It is amazing how men become manginas where some pussy is present. When you discuss some topic about the relationship between sexes and you try to introduce MRA arguments, you have the women AND THE MEN against you. It’s painful to see how much men are willing to do to to please women . It’s painful to see how much men are scared that the ladies could be in disagreement with them.

This is the problem of the West: there are no men anymore, only little babies that are scared of Mommy getting angry with them.

Feminism has revealed the true nature of women: “ME!ME!ME” and the true nature of men “PUSSY!PUSSY!PUSSY!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth September 16, 2010 at 06:36

“While feminism and women are largely responsible for the collapse of the West, men had a role to play as well. Feminism would have never taken root and grown if it weren’t for the scores of beta males who just gave in to the demands of women and feminists. We men should have put our foots down and said “No”, but we gave in to the pussy power. Thanks to that, we have the situation we’re in now.”

True, but your verbs are in past sense and this happens in the present. This should have read:

“We men SHOULD PUT our foots down and SAY “No”, but we GIVE in to the pussy power.”

It is amazing how men become manginas where some pussy is present. When you discuss some topic about the relationship between sexes and you try to introduce MRA arguments, you have the women AND THE MEN against you. It’s painful to see how much men are willing to do to to please women . It’s painful to see how much men are scared that the ladies could be in disagreement with them.

This is the problem of the West: there are no men anymore, only little babies that are scared of Mommy getting angry with them.

Feminism has revealed the true nature of women: “ME!ME!ME” and the true nature of men “PUSSY!PUSSY!PUSSY!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 16, 2010 at 07:02

Clarence, it could be that this entire article is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (if you knew about logic, you could claim that) however the historical record suggests otherwise. Women tend to be security oriented by nature, because their sexual reproduction strategy demands it. Therefore, when given the vote, they will tend to vote for security. Now, this can take many forms. It can take the form of a married woman voting the same way her husband does, no matter what. It can take the form of a single woman voting for whatever political party promises the most goodies. It can take the form of married and single women voting for the most handsome man. I can find examples of each in the 20th century without any effort.

The fact that many men will also vote for security is worth considering in a larger sense, but it isn’t relevant to the subject at hand. This is a discussion of women’s voting patterns and their effects. In the US, women who are married tend to vote for the nominally conservative party (Republicans) while women who are single tend to vote for the party of bigger government (Democrats). Sure, there are exceptions, but in the aggregate, in large numbers, that’s the pattern that has been seen for about 40 years now, possibly going back as far as WW II. In each case, there is a vote for perceived security, and this ties back to female reproductive strategies, which have not changed in millenia.

Security isn’t free. All across Europe, the Anglosphere and into the Latinsphere, we see that social safety nets (security for the poor and old) are fraying as more and more burdens are placed upon them. We see more and more single women bearing children, and placing more and more burdens onto various public services while not generating enough tax payments to compensate. Ancient Rome saw the birth rate of the productive class decline, while the birth rate of the “bread and circus” groups did not. In time, Rome because unsustainable; there were too many eating out of the public trough, and not enough putting into it. Glubb points to other times this has happened as well. Looking around, I see unsustainable promises all around the world. Japan’s population is actually shrinking, in part because liberated Japanese women simply do not want to have babies. The US government debt is bigger than all the money in the world, in part because Big Sugar Daddy government has overpromised to an absurd degree.

Universal franchise may well be a mistake also, I’m willing to consider it. But for now, the damage done by female suffrage must be plumbed, because we need to be able to document and expound upon this topic, in order to avoid the same error in some hypothetical future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
3DShooter September 16, 2010 at 07:29

@Gawallan

“Taking away my vote will result in my withdrawal of consent to that government to govern ME. I will not obey their laws, pay their taxes or conform in any manner to their requirements. Not negotiable.”

I assume you responded this way because you are a government employee – that was a choice you made. Taking the vote from government employees does not affect their ability to choose a career and therefore you would be viewed as willingly ceding your right to vote for your career choice.

Since others have offered up literary suggestions, I’ll make one of my own “The Ethics of Liberty” by Murray Rothbard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Migu September 16, 2010 at 07:31

I’m biting. How do you make post hoc ergo propter hoc argument here. Maybe, maybe against the linked essay? I don’t see it with the author’s post though.

If you have the time anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu September 16, 2010 at 07:33

It is a variation of correlation equals causation, if you aren’t familiar with the latin term.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu September 16, 2010 at 07:33

That would the plural you

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter September 16, 2010 at 07:50

@Migu

if you are referring to my comment (not clear), I have serious doubts that it can be ascribed to the logical fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo proptor hoc’.

The logical error is allowing recipients of largess to have a say in how much ‘theft’ (taxes) should be allowed as legitimate to enable the largess in the first place. It is the rational equivalent of allowing your children to decide, unbounded, how large their allowance should be – if you have more than one they clearly have a majority. It is the old ‘two wolves and a sheep deciding the dinner menu’ argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Migu September 16, 2010 at 07:52

I was referring to anon reader. He said Clarence could make a convincing argument with that fallacy

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 16, 2010 at 08:19

Migu:
I’m biting. How do you make post hoc ergo propter hoc argument here. Maybe, maybe against the linked essay?

Here ya go: “Look, just because social and economic decline has happened in the last 40 years it does not follow that female suffrage is the cause. All this decline came after the invention of television, too. So why don’t you argue against TV? All this decline came after the invention of the automatic transmission for cars, you gonna blame that too? This is just post hoc argument: one thing followed another in time, so you claim the earlier event caused the latter one.”

Something along those lines. You could also claim correlation vs. causation in the case of the 1920′s-1930′s politics, as female suffrage was then a new factor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
migu September 16, 2010 at 08:44

Okay,

Suffrage is not a physical technology. That argument is nonsensical.

Now: It also happened after emancipation of the slaves in America. Gonna make that argument too.

So then the proper way to assail this is???????????

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Eincrou September 16, 2010 at 08:52

26 hours have elapsed since this article came out and I’m surprised nobody has posted this legendary video yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 16, 2010 at 09:11

Migu, I did not claim that post hoc was a good argument against the article in question. I said it was possible to make that argument.

Some years back I read a claim that the German democrats such as Konrad Adenaur and others had debates in secret in 1944-45 over what had gone wrong in Germany, and how to set up a future government to avoid the same horrible error. This was purely speculative talk at the time, as obviously Germany was still within the grasp of the National Socialists. Nevertheless, those secret discussions were not in vain, because some of the men who were involved in them became leaders of post-war Germany once the Allied powers decided to allow some degree of self government. That’s kind of what some discussions here at Spearhead and elsewhere are; debates about what went wrong, and how it could be avoided in the future. For now, it’s all just talk. However, there could be some young men reading this who might emerge as leaders in the future. So it is worth doing.

Again I’ll state that in my opinion, women will vote for security because of their reproductive strategy. That implies a lot of things, some of them I’ve already pointed out.

PS: The situation in Switzerland is not as simple as some (not you, Migu) have said. The Helvetican Confederation was, and mostly still is, a Federal republic. So most decisions were made at the canton level; cantons are the smallest political subdivisions. Switzerland came into being because four small areas united in the 13th century to kick out the Austrian overlords. So for centuries, the decision on who got to vote was left up to the cantons. In the 13th and 14th centuries, a lot of cantons had an assembly every year, and any man who wished to vote had to arrive armed, to show that he was ready to fight for the community. Obviously that’s long gone.

Anyway, some cantons gave women the vote early, I would guess that Geneva was one of the first. Others came along later. The last few cantons held out until the 1970′s, when popular pressure finally led to the change. I’ve been to Switzerland multiple times over the last three decades, and the changes are both obvious and subtle. Women’s voting is only one of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Zeev_Zwaard September 16, 2010 at 09:32

The right to vote should cease to be universal. “One man, one vote” is not right because not every man has what it takes to deserve a vote.

The right to vote should be qualified. As such, if a woman qualifies then she might be give the right to vote.

Today, it doesn’t make much sense to put that having a vagina disqualifies you for voting. Quite a lot of penis holders don’t deserve to vote.

Make the right to vote dependent on proper and rational qualification beginning with a solemn oath to respect and uphold the principles stated on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
fondueguy September 16, 2010 at 10:18

@anon

Doesn’t Switzerland still mandate some military related services from men? I heard that Federer was able to get out of it for some medical reason and continue his international career (thank God).

I know alot of decisions in CH come from the Canton level including education. But how important are national policies and funding? Is the ETH nationally funded, what about other reaserch? Would it be easy to have national feminist inspired training (cops, judges, social workers…) programs for women and girls and so on?

Would “gender equality” movements in CH be obnoxious like it is in most places (blaming men). Are they likely to take things to far? Do they consider men’s issues?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 16, 2010 at 11:16

“Anyway, some cantons gave women the vote early, I would guess that Geneva was one of the first.”

1959-1960
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/chronology-womens-right-vote-switzerland.html

The comment at the end of the page is intriguing and ironical, and also worth noting the the 1929-1939 period in the timeline.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
clarence September 16, 2010 at 12:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16
Migu September 16, 2010 at 12:51

FEMALE SUFFRAGE DESTROYED WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!

Of course its absurd, but how many people read it because of that? Insert helped after suffrage and you have the article, along with its points and authorities.

I think the headline worked well. Classic bait and switch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Alte September 16, 2010 at 13:15

Thank you, Migu. I kept reading, re-reading, re-reading… It could have continued on fruitlessly for hours. It never occured to me that the surgeon could be a woman.

How many actual surgeons are women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Alte September 16, 2010 at 13:18

Migu,

It could even be argued that female suffrage was simply a first step after the decline began. What, exactly, led to female suffrage? The Enlightenment?

But then, how far back to we want to go with this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Migu September 16, 2010 at 13:58

It goes back to Plato. There are parallels in Eastern philosophy. I’m only familiar with them on an elementary level.

The foundations of the prevailing philosophy can be found among the ancients.

aside

Here comes the doublethink. Ancients are geniuses, but they are barbarians that thought the earth was flat. No, like any other human, they had some of it right and most of it wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Amax September 16, 2010 at 14:25

While opposing viewpoints are of course very necessary in order to have a fair and balanced conversation, when people start to say that there are aspects of an issue ‘they do not see’ I really have to wonder about their position. While people may indeed argue about female suffrage, to say that women’s voting power hasn’t caused any issues in society that can be seen?

Makes me start to wonder.

Then of course, being accused of double-think and hearing about hanging out at feminist websites?

Sounds like projection to me.

Men aren’t perfect, beyond the shadow of a doubt we aren’t but when there are many facts staring one right in the face and one still doesn’t see them or the damage that they cause, that tells me more about that person than anything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Gunn September 16, 2010 at 14:29

@clarence: goodbye dick. dont let the door hit your ass on the way out. seriously, for you and anyone like you: shaming language doesnt work on the men here, so dont waste your breath.

@migu the flat earth idea was disproven well before any western civilisation proved it; simply look at the horizon from a hill, and ask yourself, why can’t i see the ends of the earth? as soon as you do this, you realise the earth cant be flat. one of the arrogances of pur modern age is to suppose the ancients were idiots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 16, 2010 at 14:38

eastern philosophies generally state that women are unable to find enlightenment as easily as men. when i was young, i thought this was sexist. today i realize it is wisdom.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Migu September 16, 2010 at 14:40

I was trying to deflect certain specific arguments. She asked how far back it goes, I said plato.

I didn’t accuse anyone. I warned them two certain arguments wouldn’t work.

I said “like any other human, they had some of it right and most of it wrong.” ”

Do you think I’m an alien?

Strawmen are cool huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Electricangel September 16, 2010 at 15:36

Don’t trust Google would be another conclusion of this story. See Athol Kay’s excellent article: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/03/dominace-and-submission-in-marriage.html

Did you notice the Google Search Suggestion that he has captured in an image? Now try the same search today. The top suggestion is NOWHERE to be seen: it was scrubbed from the suggestion list and dropped down the memory hole.

Time to find a new search engine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
NURBS September 16, 2010 at 16:17

“That’s the whole point. Women make their decisions to benefit themselves, with no regard to the consequences to other human beings. We are unfit to have the vote because we are narcissists. Sad, but true.”

There was an article recently that described how genes inherited from the mother make people selfish and genes from the father make people unselfish:

“They found that because, historically, women moved about more than men, and so are less related to their neighbours, our paternal and maternal genes are in conflict over how we should behave – with our paternal genes encouraging us to be altruistic whilst our maternal genes encourage us to be selfish.

‘When women disperse more during their lifetime than men, as seems to be the case for ancestral humans, this leads to you being more related to your neighbours through your father than through your mother,’ said Dr Andy Gardner of Oxford University’s Department of Zoology, an author of the report.

‘This leads to conflicts over social behaviour: the genes you receive from your father are telling you to be kind to your neighbours, whereas the genes you receive from your mother, like a demon sat on your shoulder, try to make you act selfishly.’”

http://www.physorg.com/news202655329.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 16, 2010 at 16:57

Clarence:
I refuse to concede a category error for an argument I never made.

Ok. So basically your point is that female suffrage is “fair” because women are “responsible”. But you refuse to define any of your terms. So essentially you have an emotional statement backed up by another emotional statement, totally empty of any facts. Meanwhile, you basically ignore any facts provided that contradict your emotional statements.

I’m sure you get along just fine with feminists…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Alte September 16, 2010 at 17:06

I wrote about something similar on my site (which is still under construction, please excuse the intellectual mess over there).

Women’s very nature is not conducive to leadership. That is not because women are too stupid to lead, too ignorant to lead, too evil to lead, or too frail to lead. Rather it is because women are too amoral to lead.

The reason why matriarchy (rule by women) always ends in decadence, poverty, and depravity is because women are not good at abstract morality. Abstract morality is essential for building complex hierarchies. It is what civilization is founded upon, and it is something that women are inherently bad at.

Women are utilitarian, which means they make their judgments based upon what seems best at a certain time, in a certain environment. If the circumstances change, their decision will change. If they have been taught to believe in objective morality (religion), than they are reduced to using rationalizations to excuse this change.

I explain something similar here:

Rule #5: Don’t expect logic

* It’s not true that women are illogical. Women are perfectly capable of logical thinking, if they have been trained to do so. The difference is that women don’t care about logic.
* When men argue, they are trying to find out who is right. In other words, the man with the most logic and knowledge will usually win, proving he’s the smartest.
* When women argue, they want to win at all costs. They don’t care about finding out the answer, they just want to end up on top. Logic is just one of many tools they use to win, and it will be immediately discarded if they think it isn’t working for them.

Women are built for survival, which leads to narcissism. Men are built for cooperation, which leads to altruism (also ultimately a selfish act, as it benefits his progeny). This isn’t to say that one is necessarily better than the other, but that they will react and behave in a different manner because of their very nature. That difference should be not be ignored when assigning roles.

As to all who say “you can’t take away the vote anymore”, I completely agree. We can’t, without overthrowing the government. But it is still interesting to discuss this, as we create a record of thought that the designers of the next civilization could reference, and it helps us to see how the feminists and their allies set about destroying the current one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
thehermit September 16, 2010 at 17:59

Women are built for survival, which leads to narcissism.

I don’t understand its logic :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo September 16, 2010 at 18:23

I’m surprised that nobody has cited the famous study published by Lott and Kenny in the Journal of Political Economy in 1999: “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”

Here’s the abstract:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century
as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional
time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures
and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate
state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state
laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government
expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary
to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something
that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American
government started growing when it did.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf.

The key graph is Figure 2 on page 9.

That graph alone is probably worth a separate article in the Spearhead!

[hint, hint]

Also, a similar paper is available here:

http://chartersoffreedom.c-mph.net/SSRN-id160530.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
clarence September 16, 2010 at 18:43

Anonymous Reader:

For someone who seemed intelligent, you sure have a way of missing the point.
The fact is we are not arguing morality here. We were supposed to argue whether the fact of female suffrage has indeed destroyed western civilization and /or is harmful (being kind and letting the hyperbolic title go) and IF so what to do about it. This could involve tightening voting restrictions , restricting women from voting at all, or even repealing the franchise for most people. That I find the second and third options morally repugnant is really not of any import.

But instead of arguing THAT with me, you’ve tried to get me on category errors based on moral arguments, something that any first year philosophy student would know is a totally futile gesture. We are never going to rationally agree on all aspects of morality. I’ve tried explaining that to you, but you keep coming back to it, like I have to explain my moral choices to you or my judgment of individual voters to you. So instead you’ve wasted my time and tried my patience. You don’t have data about my moral choices, what you have is data that partly -and only partly- establishes an argument that female suffrage might be harmful to a society under certain conditions. That might be an interesting argument but it’s not the one you’ve chosen to try and make to me. Instead you keep attacking my personal judgments of morality and wisdom.

As for how well I get along with feminists, you might want to look into this thread:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Joe September 16, 2010 at 20:12

you are quite right, although marx has very little to do with it. Chicks voting is very irresponsible. Marx didn’t invent anything. I think maybe he just got famous by ignoring obviously relevant factors and building an imaginary utopia built on an obviously bullshit theory. He ignored motivation. That’s retarded. If I decided to describe an imaginary world based on a theory that ignored gravity would I be famous? If so, why?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fondueguy September 16, 2010 at 20:18

@clarence September 16, 2010 at 12:03

Your an idiot if your expecting a well organized academic argument. To “prove” the title would not happen in a post. There is good dialogue, good points, information, and ideas being spread here. Your whole post is useless trolling.

Some of the posts made points with claims that are anecdotal (I hope you know what that means…).

You not worth the effort but its obvious women make selfish votes and its fucking our country. Women’s issues are more more more mentality. That is destructive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
nothingbutthetruth September 16, 2010 at 21:08

Alte, you rock. I have felt this way about women and morality before, but you explain it in such a logical and coherent way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Tim September 16, 2010 at 21:20

For example, while Google is proud to celebrate the 19th Amendment with a cute pink checkbox, I doubt Google would celebrate the 2nd Amendment with an illustration of a White Man holding a rifle. And all of us who were raised under Cultural Marxism instinctively know why this is the case.

Wow. Devastating.

Great job, Ramz.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 16, 2010 at 22:20

How about a very big laugh at the expense of feminists everywhere?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87U4ANfJRWg&feature=fvw

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Anonymous September 17, 2010 at 02:43

3DShooter…

I assume you responded this way because you are a government employee – that was a choice you made.

No, I’m not actually. In fact my professional life entails reducing the governments tax revenue and putting that reduction straight into the pockets of my clients, the taxpayers. You should honour me. I do more to keep money out of government coffers than just about anybody.

I did work for my state government for a time. What I actually did politically through that time was completely withdraw from my party political activities.

Migu…

Why not just withdraw your consent now and stop voting?
Nationally anyways.

I’m a member of the party that’s running most Australia at the moment(mind you I’m more critical of them than I am of the opposition parties). My vote in the larger scheme of things probably doesn’t matter all that much but I do value it. The vote I have within the party is probably of far greater value to me.

Progress is being made at my local level. I’ve got quite a few of the younger blokes on side over many mens issues and the support is slowly strengthening. Several of them are quite likely future MPs. My optimism grows.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Migu September 17, 2010 at 05:53

anon,

You are typical. Your optimism grows at the prospect of wielding a stick over some weaker enemy.

You will only withdraw if you can’t vote. So, if you lose a vote for sending people with a characteristic you have to the electric chair, you will just go willingly as long as you were allowed to “vote” on the measure.

The fact that you are optimistic about having power and that is why you consent is just a convenient excuse for ignoring the obvious consequences of a vote as the one described above. At least you revealed your philosophy on power though.

Careful with that, it is nondiscriminatory. It will feed on you one day too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 17, 2010 at 06:26

“* It’s not true that women are illogical. Women are perfectly capable of logical thinking, if they have been trained to do so. The difference is that women don’t care about logic.”

Once you know woman’s aim, her emotional workings smoothly transition into the rational realm, thus removing the mystique; no wonder roissy attracts so many outraged chicks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Alte September 17, 2010 at 08:05

DC pointed it out to me, originally. And then I started to notice myself doing it in argument with my husband. I hadn’t even noticed before. Dialectic seems more masculine, while rhetoric seems more feminine. Dialectic is about conversing in an attempt to seek truth, while rhetoric is about manipulating your audience. In rhetoric, if logic helps your argument, then use it. If it doesn’t help your argument, then toss it out and try something else.

You see that in rhetoric, where a lot of the effort is spent trying to prove disinterest or harmlessness to strengthen a position. Sort of like your woman breaking out in tears, bringing up a mistake you made in the past, or saying, “You don’t care about me!” when you are discussing something with her. It probably has nothing to do with the actual conversation, rather it’s an attempt (sometimes unwitting) to make you feel sorry for her and paint yourself as her oppressor. That makes her look more altruistic and makes you look like the Big Bad Man who should let her have her way, just this once.

Sneaky, that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Alte September 17, 2010 at 08:12

He, he. That list I wrote is pretty funny. I’d forgotten all about it. My favorite part (and the one most pertinent to our recent discussions about She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named) was:

Women are like The Attention Monster, and their appetite for attention is insatiable. They want attention as much as men want sex, and they have no refractory period. Scary, I know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Anonymous September 17, 2010 at 09:55

evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2010 at 22:53
A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies instantly. The boy, in critical condition, is rushed to the nearest hospital for emergency surgery.
The surgeon looks at the child aghast and says, “I can’t operate on him! He’s my own son!”

Can you solve this puzzle?
If you can’t then pat yourself on the back.

The surgeon in question cuckolded the man who died in the car accident and the boy’s mother kept the truth from the false father and he went to his grave thinking he had a son.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
by_the_sword September 17, 2010 at 10:01

evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2010 at 22:53
A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies instantly. The boy, in critical condition, is rushed to the nearest hospital for emergency surgery.
The surgeon looks at the child aghast and says, “I can’t operate on him! He’s my own son!”

Can you solve this puzzle?
If you can’t then pat yourself on the back.

Answer A:
The “father” who was killed in the accident was not the real father of the boy, it was in fact the surgeon who was supposed to operate on the boy. The mother of the boy kept this a secret and the “father” went to his grave thinking that he had a son.

Answer B:
The surgeon is the boy’s Mother but she is late for a hair appointment and is using her kid as an excuse to get out of work early.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
MBC1209 September 17, 2010 at 10:27

Great article…and thank you for posting the Dahlgren article, loved it.
56% of females voted for Obama compared to 49% of men…women seem to vote for leftist idealogues in droves because apparently the “right” to murder their own children is THE most important “right” to the modern female. I have been told I am crazy for saying that women should not have the right to vote and that we should go back to stricter requirements for voters, like owning land, or actually paying taxes since you have a more legitmate reason to care where your money goes rather than the “poor” who do not pay taxes and only vote for those people who will continue their ‘assistance”. I enjoy your videos on youtube too, I was very pleased to see you posting here, great work!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Epoche* September 17, 2010 at 16:45

Carpe Libertatum
Spencer supported women’s suffrage in his youth (Social Statics), but by his later years he had matured and realized what expanding suffrage would lead to (the older Spencer wrote articles with titles such as “Re-barbarization” and “The Coming Slavery”). Spencer supported the Liberty and Property Defence League, an organization that opposed women’s suffrage and socialism in Britain.
——————————–
I am a huge fan of the libertarian hero Herbert Spencer and I am thrilled to see that he has been mentioned on this website. I would like to see more written about him here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kathy September 17, 2010 at 18:57

“Dialectic seems more masculine, while rhetoric seems more feminine. Dialectic is about conversing in an attempt to seek truth, while rhetoric is about manipulating your audience. In rhetoric, if logic helps your argument, then use it. If it doesn’t help your argument, then toss it out and try something else.”

Oh, ain’t it the truth, Alte.

“Women are like The Attention Monster, and their appetite for attention is insatiable. They want attention as much as men want sex, and they have no refractory period. Scary, I know.”

Ha ha.. I LOVE IT! . Really… Alte, you should write a book that should be mandatory reading for ALL young women, because most young women just don’t get that…

I remember something that TFH said, namely that women do not understand how women themselves think.

I think for the most part this is quite true.

Women ARE illogical and exceedingly emotive to the point of stupidity, because they crave attention.. Bit like children.. (Yes GM, TFH…and others.. you were right about that!)

You have great perception and introspection, Alte.

I take issue with just one thing, though..

“They want attention as much as men want sex”

I’ll take sex over attention anyday, mate.

Mind you, if you’re getting the sex you’re getting the attention as well! ;)

“Up there for thinking.. down there for dancing..! Lol.. (Oz saying)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire September 17, 2010 at 23:08

@nuthingbutthetruth

It is amazing how men become manginas where some pussy is present. When you discuss some topic about the relationship between sexes and you try to introduce MRA arguments, you have the women AND THE MEN against you. It’s painful to see how much men are willing to do to to please women . It’s painful to see how much men are scared that the ladies could be in disagreement with them.

Sexual independence for men is the key.
May be easier than a lot think.
The problem is the self misandric anti-masturbatory memes that have been around since forever and no doubt started by women.
While it may not be a complete substitute BETTER masturbation could take a sizable chunk out of the ‘collective’ pussy power of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
ramzpaul September 18, 2010 at 10:34

Thanks for all the comments!

@MBC1209 I am glad you like my Youtube videos.

Lost_Y September 18, 2010 at 15:43

A note to my fellow American conservatives and constitutionalists : the founding fathers did not advocate universal suffrage.

We’ve started to talk about natural rights here (a concept libertarians also hold dear), but even though the founders were very liberal (in the pre-marxist, European sense) they did not favor universal suffrage or democracy in the modern sense.

Voting was an issue originally left to the states and rights were given based on things like land ownership and tax contributions.
In other words: their merit to the state. This was true of the ancient forms of democracy as well.

In weighing principle against utility, the founders, as a whole, generally chose the latter. Libertarians will admit this conflict, but generally choose the former. This is jumping unto the same slippery slope down to hell we’re already on.

If voting were an inalienable right for all, we would let felons do it. Yet some people fight for felon’s voting rights, because that is the logical progression once you have internalized the concept of universal suffrage as a natural right. It will end with suffrage for infants (with help from mom in pulling the lever).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Alte September 18, 2010 at 17:43

I remember that some people in Europe have been campaigning for a children’s vote. I don’t know if they got it, though.

Mind you, if you’re getting the sex you’re getting the attention as well!

Precisely. ;) But sex is only a valuable form of attention if you want his sperm (i.e. you think he’s hot). Otherwise, we prefer attention in the form of protection or provision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
namae nanka September 18, 2010 at 20:37

“The problem is the self misandric anti-masturbatory memes that have been around since forever and no doubt started by women.”

Complete celibacy has never been women’s motto, in fact they will recoil in horror at that. But yes, when it comes to “give attention to me” then women will try their level best to get it outlawed. However, that also holds for whatever men might start to like more than them, like playing games on the PS3, watching sports, going out on town with the boys and of course, porn.

“While it may not be a complete substitute BETTER masturbation could take a sizable chunk out of the ‘collective’ pussy power of women.”

and what do you think they will masturbate over? :)
satiation of sexual desire can not come about by jerking off or for that matter by banging a variety of women. It’s counter-intuitive but sexual desires don’t go down if you keep on ejaculating. That’s just temporary relief. Men need to contain their sexuality, how that’s to be done can be a good debate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 18, 2010 at 20:40

and to follow up, girlfriends going crazy over their boyfriend’s playing games rather than seducing them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtWurY7wtpc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvk-s8-vSjs

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA September 18, 2010 at 21:15

No ramzpaul, female suffrage (and resultant “radical feminism”) is *uniquely synonymous* with Western Civilization.

It is the *inevitable product* of Western Civilization.

Western Civilization is based upon the idea of rights, equality, individualism, etc. Or at least, has been since the Enlightenment and the Classical Liberal theory that developed at that point.

Female suffrage and resultant radical feminism become inevitable in this Western Civilization system. For if we’re all just individuals, we all have our “rights”, and we want to create “equality” [of whatever], how can we deny women the “universal right” to vote? Or the “universal right” to property? Or the “universal right” to misandrist speech?

“Womens’ suffrage, unbound by corresponding responsibility”

Sophistry. The vaunted Constitution doesn’t say anything about “responsibility” in relation to so-called “rights”, and even if it did “responsibility” is subjective and relative.

Those in power, feminist women or feminist-sympathizers, define what “responsibility” is as per what suits them, on their terms.

The reality is that the whole Western Liberal proposition is false; you try to bolster the fraud that is Western Classical Liberalism by going on nonsensical tangents about “responsibility” but it doesn’t work.

The whole proposition has to go, for it leads inevitably to female suffrage, feminism and all the snowballing institutionalized misandry that entails.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
MRA September 18, 2010 at 21:18

Maybe they didn’t advocate “universal suffrage” per se. But the whole theory that the Founding Fathers put forth – on which the US and its Constitution is based – is a textbook Classical Liberal one.

Universal suffrage is an inevitability in such a Classical Liberal system; the question is when is it going to happen.

The Founders didn’t oppose the *principle* of democracy; once you don’t oppose the *principle* of democracy the trend is always towards universal suffrage; especially within the Liberal framework.

The supposed animosity the Founders had towards “democracy” is greatly overstated.

The whole discussion that conservatives, libertarians, etc. put forth re the Founders, their Constitution, State, and democracy is misconceived.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA September 18, 2010 at 21:23

The above in response to:

“A note to my fellow American conservatives and constitutionalists : the founding fathers did not advocate universal suffrage.”

“We’ve started to talk about natural rights here (a concept libertarians also hold dear).”

There is no such thing as “natural rights”.

“Natural rights” and the false Classical Liberal framework it goes along with allow feminism to happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 18, 2010 at 21:48

and what do you think they will masturbate over?

The same stuff they do now.
And computer generated porn is already here and it’s only a matter of time before it matches and then exceeds the quality of the real deal.

It’s counter-intuitive but sexual desires don’t go down if you keep on ejaculating.

Missing the point.
Nicotine cravings don’t go down if you keep using patches or gum but they are a hell of a lot better than smoking.
The whole point is to have a way to be sexually satisfied (if only temporarily) that is in NO WAY dependent upon the consent, endorsment, approval, permission or favor of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA September 18, 2010 at 22:10

“It could even be argued that female suffrage was simply a first step after the decline began. What, exactly, led to female suffrage? The Enlightenment?”

Yes, the Enlightenment and the false Classical Liberal theory is synonymous with.

The various classical liberal states formed on the basis of those false theories.

If you want to trace it back further – what caused the nonsense simplistic idealism of the Enlightenment/Liberalism – then you have to look at Christianity.

The Alpha Beta Gamma Principle, the techno snowball and dysgenics also factor into the “what caused feminism” question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Migu September 19, 2010 at 06:33

MRA

Dialectical materialism died with the SOviets.

It is flawed philosophical tool. If you really want to slam natural rights, use a heglian model, not the corrupted Marxian version.

That said. Liberal (classical) philosophy mainly deals with the harmful effects of government on the economy. It doesn’t care the political form, one way or another. Monarchy, demo, despot, imperial, the advise rendered by the philosophy doesn’t change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
namae nanka September 19, 2010 at 10:03

Temporary relief is a good idea, but women wouldn’t change but would grow shriller with that. Beating off inside will only give women more power outside.
Beat the addiction, or know how to control it so that it doesn’t become an addiction in the first place; in spite of women saying that men suffer from it, it’s really their own addiction to it that they project on men.
Of course if you are waiting for it to collapse then temporary relief is the better choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lost_Y September 19, 2010 at 17:46

MRA,
I agree that the founders left the door open. “Give them an inch,” and all that.

I’m not a philosopher (and somewhat glad of that), but I think the increasing wealth and ease of life that came over the last few hundred years allowed feminism to happen. Along with the rest of the liberal thought we now face. In other words, it is my opinion that liberal thought grows from what seems like reasonable liberty to ridiculous entitlement as people become increasingly insulated from nature and reality in general.

I do not see how you can lay the blame principally on Christianity. Christendom was around long before the enlightenment. As far as I know, most see the two as being at odds.

I’m curious, what is your answer to natural rights? Earned rights? That’s essentially my stance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 19, 2010 at 20:46

Temporary relief is a good idea, but women wouldn’t change but would grow shriller with that.

Feminism exists precisely because of social and technological changes that threaten their collective sexual power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NETx64tZes
That is the reason they are shrill now.
But so what if they became shriller? If men stop backing them up then it’s no longer us against them and bunch of goons that got their back. Instead it will be just us against them (by themselves). No amount of shrillness would make any difference then right?

……. right?

Beating off inside will only give women more power outside.

I have no problem with women having power so long as they earn it by hard work. (NOBODY really should get it any other way.) And I’m certain that a lot do. But for the most part feminism is really just chivalry by a new name.

Beat the addiction, or know how to control it so that it doesn’t become an addiction in the first place

Who said sex was a (real) addiction? I only used the cigarette analogy to drive home a point. (That it’s better to beat off than to contribute to misandry by doing their bidding.) Words are our servants not our masters.

I’m not sure what your getting at but if your saying that we should just ‘resist temptation’ then your probably going to end up with a bunch of hornier guys who are even LESS able to resist pussy power.

A well satisfied sexual appetite is the key to solving this problem NOT a food strike.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
namae nanka September 20, 2010 at 12:04

I have no problem with women having power so long as they earn it by hard work. (NOBODY really should get it any other way.)

That’s a dangerous assumption, you are equating a man in power is no different from a woman in power. Not to mention hard-work earnings become pointless when the rules have been set and even an ape can follow them, so that only those who can’t get bored by the rules follow them. Or those who follow them right down to minutiae.

Women with power can have these things banned, and don’t think it isn’t possible. Iceland already has banned strip clubs, sweden operates with the stupidity that selling sex is fine, but buying it is wrong. There’s nothing to say that it can’t get worse. For women power is intimately connected to sexuality, and even if they do the hard work to get there, they’d still not forget their original nature.

“Who said sex was a (real) addiction? “

well imo craving for anything except a biological necessity is an addiction, or at least induces temptations that lead to an irrational decision.

I’m not sure what your getting at but if your saying that we should just ‘resist temptation’ then your probably going to end up with a bunch of hornier guys who are even LESS able to resist pussy power.

you are making a strawman here, I didn’t say to “resist temptation”, but to not have them in the first place. Of course the sexual urges can’t be simply wished away, but contrary to common perception, male sexuality is much more controllable than female.

Teaching young men, boys rather, how to control it rather than providing novel avenues for them to pursue their worst desires is a better way. One way of doing that is by leading with example. Celibacy might be too extreme to achieve, but then I don’t hold much hope for those who graduate under the “An orgasm a day keeps doctor away” slogan.

A well satisfied sexual appetite is the key to solving this problem NOT a food strike.

Actually this works more appropriately for women.

I am viewing the male sex drive as composed of two things:
1)blue balls and needing a place to empty them
2)need for intimate contact with another person

the first one can be done with or without women, but if you sexualize it, it gets boring after a while, the way variety in women is needed for PUAs. The technological advancements might provide variety but it does break down at the point when you realize that there is another type of encounter with a real human being that can be had. And in this way it is pointless, because men would still be masturbating over images of women, and when the life and blood version exists, it will still hold a power over them.

Of course what I think is impossible to implement, but the other way will only lead to a quicker demise and decay of things, though it might not be the worst outcome at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 20, 2010 at 22:43

when the life and blood version exists, it will still hold a power over them.

Only not nearly as much power. If their requests of us exceed inexpensive favors such as buying them a drink they are going to quickly learn that they have hit a brick wall.

Women with power can have these things banned, and don’t think it isn’t possible.

But who’s gonna enforce the ban if their are no more whiteknights and manginas?
Police women with guns going up against unarmed criminals I can see. But women are generally allergic to any situation where there is a significant probability of being killed or injured.
Men, on the other hand, have gone to war for far less then their own sexual liberation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
jesse September 21, 2010 at 22:19

Inherent in this is the obvious conclusion that democracy is in fact the problem. Democracy is in fact a system where the majority have power of god over the minority. Well, I hate to break it to you but WE MALES are the minority.
This is the problem with the MRM as I see it. There’s a lot of rhetoric about how unfair the system is but offers no real solution to how it can be fixed. Most MRA’s are right wingers that see democracy as some absolute state of goodness and opposing it is simply evil whereas it is in fact the very thing that has led to our oppression. As long as women have the vote that situation will remain because the very system itself prevents the vote being taken away from them and as long as they vote we will be oppressed. The horse has bolted and we’ve locked the gate.
My prediction (at least for Australia and lots of Europe) is an eventual physical uprising by the Muslims and the male non-Muslims sitting on their hands because they see them as a lesser evil to the oppression they are experiencing under feminist dominated democracy. The current system has led to suicide being the number one cause of death in Australia for men under 40. When despair is the leading cause of death even Islam looks very attractive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
john thames September 26, 2010 at 14:11

The argument against women’s suffrage is a very simple one.Women do not want the obligation of spilling their blood in defense of the government; therefore they should have no voice in its decisions.

As to men being responsible for the ills of the world, does anyone remember that monstrous female stupidity called Alcohol Prohibition, inflicted by women on the body politic the year before they gained the vote?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
john thames September 26, 2010 at 19:50

THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND FEMINISM

As this writer has repeatedly emphasized in his essays, Communism was a front for Jewish revolution world-wide. The new “ism” of the world is feminism. Is this new “ism” another front for a Jewish attack on traditional gender roles? The evidence strongly suggests that this is the case. Way back on February 20, 1978 “Time” magazine gave the game away with an article “Sexes: The Women of Israel”. The article may seem dated but by 1978 the feminist movement was in full flower in America, if not in the Promised Land. According to English-Jewish journalist Lesley Hazleton in her book, “Israeli Women”, “the liberation of Israeli women is a myth. They move in a male world of reality in the false guise of equals.”

According to the “Time” article:

“By Western standards, she reports, Israel’s attitude toward women is regressive. Women are not allowed to testify in rabbinical courts, which handle divorce and marriage for all Jews. They cannot divorce without a husband’s permission, and childless widows need a brother-in-law’s approval for remarriage, sometimes gaining it with bribes. If a woman has been widowed three times, with all three husbands dying of natural causes, she is declared the isha katlanit, the fatal woman, and is legally forbidden to marry again. If a husband simply disappears, no matter how long he has been missing; his wife cannot remarry without absolute proof of his death…”

In civilian employment, women are not much better off. Only a third of them work outside the home, mostly in lower paying jobs. Women account for only 9% of the higher-grade civil service positions, 2% of all professors, 1% of the nations engineers…Though the law calls for equal pay for equal work, many women are paid less than men for similar tasks…”

“In primary schools, she says, youngsters absorb a shocking degree of sex stereotyping that takes its toll on Israeli females…In the kibbutzim, men call the tune and fill almost all the important jobs.”

The information given by Lesley Hazelton may be confirmed by other sources. For example, the Israeli academic Yael Yishai, in “Between the Flag and the Banner: Women in Israeli Politics” writes on p.187:

“…Religious courts discriminate against women in other ways as well. For example, a man may commit adultery and eventually marry his lover, while a married woman is forbidden ever to marry her lover, and any children born from an extramarital affair are considered bastards (mamzerim). In Judaism a bastard is a pariah. He or she cannot remarry unless the potential spouse is also a bastard. Neither can a bastard in Israel marry outside the faith as the exclusive control of marriage in Israel by the religious authorities precludes such a possibility. Another infringement on women’s rights caused by religious law is the levirate marriage: a woman whose husband dies leaving her childless must be released from her deceased husband’s unmarried brother in a ceremony carried out in rabbinical court. Often extortion payments may be involved before she gets her release…Widows of war casualties, often childless young women, have occasionally been trapped in this bizarre situation.”

Although feminism has made minor strides in Israel, the patriarchy is still very firm. Women are expected to ride in the back of the bus, only with great reluctance are women being admitted to the rabbinate. The Orthodox in particular are adamant that Torah and Talmud are for “men only”. Israel has no affirmative action to promote Arab girls over Jewish boys in the work place. That holy of holies, pro-choice abortion, is unknown in Israel. The Jewess must apply for permission to have an abortion to a State Board, which makes the choice for her. Such factors as the mother’s ability to provide for the child financially are balanced against the state’s need for a higher Jewish birth rate.

One need not do much of a comparison to realize that Jews in Israel are repressing women the same way they are “liberating” them in America. That the feminist movement in the U.S. has been Jewish led from inception is indisputable. The early 1960’s feminists were entirely Jewish. Betty Goldstein/Friedan, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem were a few of the founders. The universities are full of Jewesses who are the driving force behind feminism. Such creatures as Adrienne Rich, the lesbian poetess at Stanford University, Elena Kagan, the former president of Harvard Law School gone to the Supreme Court, are good examples. Ninety per cent plus of feminist books are written by Jewess and published by New York Jewish publishers. Think of writers like Naomi Wolf, Erica Jong, Linda Ellerbee, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firestone and Hannah Rosin, the recent author of “End of Men” in the Atlantic Monthly. (One rather doubts that she foresees the “End of Men” in Israel, however.) Think of media commentators like Leslie Stahl and Barbara Walters. These feminists scream about the evils of white male domination in these United States. But Barbara Walters and her ilk remain silent on the subjection of women in Israel. They scream about the Taliban but make no mention of the Jewish sex slave trade and the brothels in Tel Aviv. They make no demand that the state of Israel register as a “sex offender” before the United Nations.

The founding mother of 1960’s feminism, Betty Friedan, has a communist past as great as or greater than that of the civil rights saint, Martin Luther King, Jr. She wrote a play defending the now proven guilty Rosenbergs while in college. She worked as a newspaper editor for the chief communist union of the late 1940’s/early 1950’s, the United Electrical, Radio and Machinists Union. She was a member of the Communist Party’s chief legal front for females, the Congress of American Women (COW). When a professor Daniel Horowitz interviewed Betty for his biography, “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique” (University of Massachusetts Press), Friedan refused to provide all of her private papers for fear of the extent of the proof of her Communist background. This material still remains sealed from public scrutiny, just like the records of the FBI surveillance tapes of Martin Luther King remain similarly sealed.

The proof that feminism is a Jewish assault on white male patriarchy is overwhelming. The Jewish preponderance in the movement, the disparity between what Jews practice in Israel versus what Jews preach in these United States and the Communist background of feminism’s “Jewish Mother” leave no doubt of the thesis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
john thames November 27, 2010 at 22:05

FEMINISM IN ANCIENT SPARTA

Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world – and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta. It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women (relatively speaking) but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women – and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35%-40% of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90% drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Leigh-Andrea December 1, 2010 at 23:33

“Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.”

The problem with mainstream conservatives is that they have too much in common with liberals; just as bound by political correctness, terrified of causing offense to some high and mighty black/hispanic feminist, promoting government interference but just in different aspects of life (stop exploiting hot women in bikinis! evil men!).

Your videos are great ramzpaul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
phil white April 17, 2011 at 16:20

My understanding of cultural marxism was that by undermining the family and destroying all other loyalties, such as to a church, a civic club, an independant workers union, the people would be left as atomized individuals with no group solidarity to stand opposed to the state.
Also with their loss of confidence that the working class would serve as the back bone of the communist movement the Frankfurt school decide to go for the support of minorities, including women as a “minority.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JC August 20, 2011 at 21:48

Once the west falls and islam takes it place all of this will be ancient History.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Michelle Martin September 27, 2011 at 07:51

I came across this site doing some research (GASP) with my obviously inadequate mind and must say I find the whole notion of a utopian idealism you have created for yourself in the past is, of course, one of the main reasons I am thankful to these women who did suffer for my right to not be subjected to your whims.
As you remiss on the loss of your unity in marriage in the daily life, did it ever occur to you the downside or the loss for women themselves?
Of course not. You’re too busy congratulating yourself on your higher achievements…..
Rape was a man’s right. Beating your wife was a man’s right. Married to a stupid selfish man, a smart woman was condemned to a certain kind of hell. A man could sell his house, kick his wife and children onto the street and go live with another woman; with no recourse.
Shall I continue? Theres about a thousand of them….
and what you fail to understand; to grasp; to open your tiny little minds up to; is THAT IS THE WAY WOMEN WERE TREATED OR THEY WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO DEMAND CHANGE.
Soooo my fine fellows……think about it. Mens conduct and behavior and leaving a woman with no recourse legally is what, in the end, added the nineteenth amendment.
When you are done with your smug arrogance, I wonder, how many of you are out there helping women and children today, who find themselves still at the mercy of men who beat and dominate them as they claim is their right? How many of you actually give a damn beyond your self-appointed words?
How many of you have sat with a woman whos been beaten for hours because she bought the wrong brand of beer? Or she made the kids dinner while he was watching his show after a hard day at work?
Its not HER behavior, but HIS.
What are you doing about it today?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
splanky October 13, 2011 at 21:49

[Rape was a man’s right. Beating your wife was a man’s right. Married to a stupid selfish man, a smart woman was condemned to a certain kind of hell. A man could sell his house, kick his wife and children onto the street and go live with another woman; with no recourse.]

And yet, if you examine the stats, this behavior is far more prevalent today than it was a century ago. In other words, thanks for demonstrating the wisdom of pre-19th society.

As to the original article, I resent the inclusion of Lincoln as some type of conservative who opposed “liberating the oppressed”. He was, after all, the leading demagogue for Marxism in America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
jon December 5, 2011 at 19:16

when woman start defending men in war,and fighting on the front lines protecting their men back home,I will call them my equal.

If the govt came forward and said no one votes,man or woman,gay,transgender etc…unless you sign a selctive service card,woman would run and hide……you know why??Because we are different,I have testosterone,I dont have a womb,I cannot give milk to a child,men are built for war and born with more muscle,as womans stomach muscles are different than a mans,actually stronger because woman have to endure child birth.

Men are better at some things,and woman better at others,it is the way of the world,and law of the jungle,and no law will ever change that,or the differences between a man and a woman,and I feel like an idiot having to even explain this,this is how far left everything has gone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
somebody December 9, 2011 at 13:52

It seems to me that here the assumption is that women are stupid, thus should not have a vote. Yes, blaming men for everything is dumb, but not every woman blames a man for something that’s happened. I don’t. If men and women are truly equal, we equally share blame.

There are more divorces because people realize they don’t want each other and can split. Previously, a marriage could be horrible – or to say the least, unloving, yet a woman – or even a man, should he want to leave the woman – could not divorce. Who says divorce is a bad thing? It is simply the realization that two people no longer love each other. Should they be forced to stay together? That does not guarantee love, I know if it were me I would hate my partner more than ever.

The point is, everyone is meant to be equal. Men aren’t to blame for everything, neither are women. I know men do get the blame, but today’s men have nothing to do with what men decided a century ago. Same with other blames related to the past.

And if this is about finding a way to blame someone for your own internal purposes, I leave you to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
somebody December 9, 2011 at 13:55

Splanky, of course stats show this. Back when the movement for suffrage began, nobody researched how many women got beaten! it is only more obvious now because people speak out. Back then, nobody spoke about it. Nobody sought help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Blane Jackson August 13, 2012 at 14:26

Women are wired differently than men. Not better or worse,just different. Give a woman a choice and she will most likely choose safety and security over freedom every time. I believe women feel this way because subconsciously every woman knows that at some point she must endure a gestation period.

During pregnancy, a woman’s physical abilities are impaired and for most of the 4.4 million years human like beings have lived on earth,she would have been vulnerable to physical attack by other animals that wanted to eat her. I believe this subconscious feeling still exists today in modern women and drives them to nest, or otherwise prepare save places to conceive and raise children. Also, in pre-historic times, women looked to a strong alpha male to protect them during this vulnerable time. This instinct worked well for “cave women,” but it doesn’t work so well when voting on modern public policy.

I believe this explains why polls show women overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. In our modern society, “social security” is more important the security from physical harm, women see Barack Obama as an alpha male in the best position to offer them the safety and security they secretly crave. Why else would otherwise rational women, vote for a man that has borrowed and spent more money then every other President in U.S. history combined. They must know it’s unsustainable, but they can’t help themselves.

This is not a new phenomenon. Since 1920, the year the 19th amendment was rectified, the U.S. has been drifting toward socialism. Before 1920, those who would promise safety and security could only count on public workers, civil servants, socialists, and a small segment of liberally minded males for support. After 1920, with the addition of women to the electorate, the game changed forever. At first wives followed their husband’s voting habits. But during WWII, as women entered the work force and began to think “independently,” voting habits changed. The late forties, fifties and sixties brought enormous social changes driven predominantly by this new liberal voting block. Socialist policies such as FDR’s “New Deal” and LBJ’s “Great Society” could never have happened before 1920 – before woman’s suffrage.

Both parties have become extremely adept at pandering to this majority coalition of socialists, public workers, civil servants, unions, and woman. Today, safety and security sell with regard to the vote. Those politicians that scream security the loudest, get the vote, regardless of whether or not they have a workable, sustainable, plan.

And the problem is getting vary serious. Billion dollar yearly spending deficits are fast becoming the norm. This year’s Presidential election is nothing less then a referendum on social spending.

The irony of this is not lost on Austrian economists. What the government gives, it takes twice – once to give, and once to administer. Americans already work half the year to pay taxes and if they really had to pay the full amount (including the borrowed money), they’ed be working all year. Americans are slaves and don’t know it. Where is the security in that?

I don’t know what the answer is. Taking the vote away from women at this point is out of the question, but how can our free society survive? Will women evolve into modern creatures that eschew social spending and deny prehistoric emotion? I don’t see any hope of that on the horizon. I’m afraid we’re heading for the dark ages.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Heinz July 7, 2013 at 22:42

Whoa. Out of all the unintelligent things I have encountered on the internet, this is by far the stupidest, narrow-minded thing I have ever read. You should actually feel accomplished! Saying the most unintelligent thing on the internet is a REALLY hard thing to do. Your mother must be so proud! Your girlfriend should feel very proud of you, as well. Oh, wait…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anonymous July 20, 2013 at 17:11

I think its a shame that this whole article of men feeling like they’ve been cheated out of a great vote, makes me sick. most of you are the ones that beat the shit out of your wives because they vetoed your vote by voting the exact opposite of you and you lack the strength to fight you own battles. If women had never achieved the vote I’d hate to see how fucked up we would be today. we’d probably all be dead from countless wars where men died because no women could voice her opinion on not going to war, or maybe a sickness not be cured do to the fact that a women wasn’t educated. No I’m great full to women and that they achieved all that they did by getting to vote and by making the changes that were needed to make all nations move in a direction that is forward and not backward. We should all get up every morning and thank are mothers for giving birth to us and to forgive our weakness in not allowing them to vote and treating them as equals from the beginning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Louie August 12, 2013 at 05:56

You make the argument that giving women the right to vote helped to create some of the modern problems that exist in this country as if it is without any doubt a problem. If it is a crass and backward notion grounded in such archaic fallacies such as this country was made to be a Christian nation. You go a step further by claiming women’s suffrage was a form of Marxist subterfuge. Adhering to your backward thinking I would argue that the Lochner Era was good for the country as a whole and that slavery itself was a positive influence.

There will never a “discussion” about the so-called detriments of giving women the right to vote. All that you did was put an elaborate spin on the desire of a few far right wackos to keep women powerless, pregnant, and kept prisoner in their homes as servants of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: