Politics

Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote

793 Comments

At the dawn of the 20th century, Britain had the greatest empire the world had ever seen. It stretched from the boreal vastness of Canada to the ice floes of the South Pole, from the scorching deserts of Egypt to the steamy jungles of New Guinea.

In 1900, British king Edward VII ruled over a quarter of the world’s population. His navy was the largest, most modern, and most ruthlessly efficient fighting force on the planet. His was the empire on which the sun never set, the undisputed global leader in science, technology, and commerce.

BEgoods

And then, in 1918, the British Parliament made a historic mistake. It gave women the vote. In 1920 the United States followed. Women’s suffrage rapidly spread around the world. Nearly 100 years later, how’s that working out for us?

Men were free in 1900

A man in Britain or the United States was free to say what he liked, subject only to the ancient laws on slander, treason, and incitement to crime. Men were the heads of their households, and they commanded respect as fathers and husbands. The majority paid no income tax. You were free to start a business without having to fend off legions of government busybodies. There was no welfare state, the only people who expected to live off their fellow men were beggars and drunks.

Western civilisation was unashamedly patriarchal and capitalist. Masculine virtues had propelled Europe out of the dark ages and colonised the New World, creating mighty new nations from scratch. Freed from feudalism and serfdom, the fertile mind of Western man produced an incredible series of discoveries and inventions. These allowed our forefathers to tame the forces of nature which had dominated and immiserated human beings since the first primitive hominids gazed in wonder and fear at a sunset on the African savannah.

Electricity let us push back the night. The steam engine brought us factories, mass production, and railways, which made mass prosperity and mass transit possible for the first time. Modern agriculture eliminated the ancient evil of famine in every country that bathed in the light of Western science. The world began to knit together as the primordial forerunner of the internet—the telegraph—brought regions and then nations and then continents together in almost instantaneous communication.

tesla_3

The intellectual crowning jewels of the West lay in its universities, from the medieval institutions of Europe to the Ivy League. These were places where serious and ferociously bright young men studied law, philosophy, and science. Where the secrets of the atom were probed, life-saving medical advances were made, astronomers mapped the cosmos, and engineers dreamed of ways to take us there, one day, into space.

The Western world in 1900 was not Utopia. There was poverty, bigotry, and injustice, but opportunity was real and a man with grit and ability could make something of himself. Many of the richest and most famous men of that era had been born poor and were self-taught.

Where stands Western civilisation today?

Men are not free in 2014

Most Western countries have a labyrinthine code of laws designed to jail you for saying the wrong things. Even in the United States, which stubbornly clings to its First Amendment, a man’s career can now be ruined and his reputation traduced if he offends against the latest dictates of political correctness.

Half or more of your income ends up in the pockets of the government, thanks to its bewildering array of taxes. Fathers and husbands—when they’re not being ridiculed as the butt of every joke on television—are second class citizens. If your wife decides she wants to take your house and your children away from you, she easily can with the full force of the law behind her.

If you try to start a business, you will find that not only are you not free to hire whoever you want, but you must also satisfy every whim of town planners, environmental bureaucrats, and health and safety commissars—all of them paid for by you, the taxpayer, to tell you what to do.

Another thing that you, the taxpayer, are funding is the welfare state. The welfare state exists to allow lazy people who don’t feel like working to live off you without going to the trouble of begging you for your money. The welfare state pays single mothers to squat out feral kids by multiple men without having to hold down a husband to pay for it all. The welfare state means the government is substitute Daddy for these women and their bastard offspring.

One fifth of US households now claim food stamps. That’s 47 million Americans, living in the richest and most successful society that has ever existed, where food is cheap and plentiful beyond the wildest dreams of people living 100 years ago, who are supposedly so pathetic and helpless that they need the government to feed them, as if they were children.

Our universities have become a bizarre combination of daycare facility, pick-up joint, and grotesque circus of left-wing drama. Universities are no longer places for serious thinkers to hone their minds. They’re places where braying young idiots go to learn to parrot feminist and Marxist slogans before reality punches them in the face with the realisation that their joke degrees are worthless.

gammamale2

The days have gone down in the West. Behind the hills, into shadow.

How did it come to this?

The state of modern society is a disaster for many fathers. But of all the self-inflicted wounds perpetrated on Western civilisation, votes for women was the most easily avoidable. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time, in 1918 and 1920, when Britain stood at her peak and the United States looked to the century ahead with supreme confidence. But women are not like men. They don’t think in the same way. They don’t understand or value freedom the way men do. Women have a herd mentality. Rugged individualism, healthy masculine debate, and raucous male laughter offend their sensibilities.

As soon as American women were allowed to vote, alcohol was banned in the United States. The temperance movement had been a female dominated nuisance for decades, but now hopelessly misguided female busybodies had electoral power. It was a farce that turned a nation into lawbreakers and birthed organised crime on a massive scale.

Slowly but inexorably, the United Kingdom and the United States, and other societies that allowed women to vote, began to tilt leftward. Welfare states were created, largely because women feel that it’s not “fair” to allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits. And it’s not “fair” that a woman should have to rely on the father of her children to support her, when she can make men in general pay for her upkeep through the tax and welfare systems.

Government, which had once been small and limited, began to spread its tentacles like a rape-beast from the sickest Japanese anime porn until it penetrated the lives of every citizen. Taxes started to rise in order to pay for all these new entitlements and programmes, and an entire caste of useless bureaucrats emerged to run them. Family and divorce law gradually warped into the anti-male Kafkaesque nightmare it is today because of politicians chasing female votes.

As with most female demands, capitulating to women’s suffragists didn’t satisfy them. Not content with invading the traditionally male space of political affairs, women started insinuating themselves into every other masculine sphere. The universities admitted them, which is why male students today find themselves harangued about imaginary “rape culture”. They swarmed into the workplace, which is why working men today find themselves terrified of sexual harassment or discrimination accusations from spiteful female co-workers. Even the military became feminised and sensitised, with deleterious consequences for the fighting man.

suffragewants

The modern religion of the West—political correctness—is every feminine vice writ large: bossy, deceitful, petty, and false. Almost everything that is wrong with modern life can be traced to the decline of masculine virtues and their replacement with feminine vices. For civilisation itself is the triumph of masculine energy, vision, and courage.

For the sake of our civilisation, for the sake of all men and women, we must undo this historic wrong turn. Women have no business voting in elections for public office, let them stick to voting for things they understand, like the X-Factor. This may seem like a quixotic idea. But remember—so was women’s suffrage, once.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Liberals Are Not The Enemy…But Liberalism Is

793 thoughts on “Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote”

  2. Do you have any appreciation for Margaret Thatcher? Although the damage of the “entitlement mentality” both in Britain and the US has been great, I would say that she is a positive result of female involvement in politics. Given Britain’s track post-WWII and after Churchill left politics, I doubt there would have emerged as strong a leader as she to combat communism abroad and leftism at home.
    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/reconsidering-margaret-thatcher.html

    1. While completely fucking over the Scot’s the Northern English, and the coal miners of Wales. Thatcher is one of the biggest examples of why women shouldn’t be in charge of countries.

        1. Nothing to do with socialism just don’t think generations of fathers and sons working in shipbuilding and coal mining should have been turfed out in the way that they were. The guinea pigging of Scotland for the poll tax was a fucking disgrace that’s why the Tories cant get a foot hold here and rightly so. I’m a capitalist but i believe that people shouldn’t be fucked over so unfairly as the previous generation in industrial Britain have been.

        2. The reason the Tories can’t get a foothold in Scotland is because the Scots are a welfare addicted socialist bunch…pure and simple.
          If you have a country where 50% of the population works for the government and the other 50% are on welfare benefits…that is how things will work!
          What Thatcher did to the coal and shipbuilding needed to be be done….making cars/ships/airplanes is NOT the business of Government…..running car companies/airlines/coal mines is NOT the business of Government…
          You don’t know what Capitalism is dude.

        3. Mate I agree with you about privatization 100% maybe not so much about the Tories but hell that’s irrelevant at the moment its the way Thatcher went about with privatization that I have a problem with not that it had to be done, I agree that it was inevitable and the right thing to do.

    2. Margaret Thatcher also brought us “Global Warming”. Yes, she seemed to understand things quite well, but literally this entire worldwide bullshit scare over CO2 emissions began with her funding specific scientific research in an attempt to break the back of coal miners unions.
      Her intentions were good, her methods were absolutely destructive.

    3. Mrs. Thatcher was not a conservative. She was an economic liberal. She didn’t care a thing for social/cultural conservatism, and did nothing to stem the tide of the social revolutions of the 60s. Same thing with Reagan, only he was worse.

    4. Yes, I loved Maggie. 24 years after she left government, and 2 years after her death, she is still a very polarising figure in the UK (see Jeeb’s comments below for the widely-held alternate view). But as far as I’m concerned, she never flinched from the painful decisions that were needed to arrest Britain’s decline into full blown socialism.
      Maggie was also an outlier. We can draw no more useful conclusions about the wisdom of allowing women from her than we can draw conclusions about the Belgians from the existence of Jean Claude Van Damme.

  3. Could be put better: like women are exempt from the draft and will only pay taxes at 1/2 the rate, net of subsidies, but they will only get 1/2 a vote. Women’s lib types could even choose to switch registered sex to get a full vote by becoming army reserve nurses, waiving their “right” to free birth control, etc., and paying full ticket price for taxes and childcare

    1. I like the idea of manginas having to officially register their manginaness. We should have a register for White Knights as well.

    1. can men masturbate while moaning “christian mcqueen” over and over? i hope so

    3. Um…y’all realize that Wyoming gave women the vote in 1839, right? Just sayin’.
      Oh and by the way… King Edward VII didn’t ascend the throne til 1901. Queen Victoria ruled until her death in 1901.

      1. Dear God if catty, vicious women ruled every country, it would be nothing but endless wars. Let’s face it, having laid-back dudes at the top instead of grudge-holding split-tails makes for far fewer confrontations.

      2. Ah, Victorian England, where Englishmen guaranteed themselves exile for false Jack the Ripper accusations.

      3. We all make mistakes. Women have a single place and that is to obey and please men. That is their reason to exist.

  6. The Founding Fathers put the stipulation on voting that you had to pay taxes – that was it. Nothing about race, color, or creed – and most people don’t know women and blacks voted in the earliest of elections. The problem was that many of the Democrat controlled states passed laws on who could own land – which was the only thing taxes were paid on. All of the mess we are in today is from that simple fact – the Democrats caused the problem, and are destroying America by allowing people with no “skin in the game” to say what is and isn’t important.
    That is why, I’m off-shoring my assets. This country is doomed. It is that simple.

    2. Jesus, why did we ever get away from votes for taxpayers? It seems like the most rational way to handle BOTH taxes AND voting. It’s the same way corporations are run. It would be great. I don’t vote now, so I would entirely opt-out of paying taxes.

        1. Wouldnt be too different from the current situation. Corporations owning everything and having the most say with lobbying power.

    4. At the same time mate, don’t conflate the old Democratic party with the members today. The old members were later referred to as ‘Dixiecrats’ and joined the Republican party. Strom Thurmond being a prime example of a Dixiecrat, started out in the Democratic party and switched to Republican when they started peeling back those laws. In fact, if you look today, the party platforms for the old Democratic party (State’s Rights, et al) fit neatly into the current Republican party platform. So if you really want to pin the blame on the Democratic party, you’re really blaming the Republican party as the Southern Strategy saw and encompassed those at odds with the changes.
      Bitter as a red pill.
      Today’s Democratic party has different foibles, and they are big. Be that as it may, today’s Republican party is the akin the late 19th or early 20th century Democratic party.
      Truth be told, no party (not even the Libertarians) gives a flying fuck about anything but how *they* interpret the constitution. Well, that and who’s giving them the biggest checks in the long run. Don’t believe me? I don’t recall too many Republicans in 2008 (or Democratic members for that matter) calling for executive heads after the world’s biggest rigged casino game ended in failure.
      That’s another thing people have to get over: Wall Street isn’t, and hasn’t for more than 4 decades, been about the efficient distribution of capital. Just like Republicans and Democratic party members supported the end of Glass-Steagal (which would’ve prevented the whole bailout, because who gives a fuck if JP Morgan’s investment division implodes if it doesn’t take down the bank) they get their checks from mostly the same people. Oh, you have some outliers, like the Koch brothers or Soros, but by and large both sides are paid by the corporatists. Even today’s FCC ruling on Net Neutrality was driven by corporatists.
      The free market died when the first executive to ruin a company didn’t lose his own shirt in the process, and still got paid. The stock market ended rational distribution of monetary resources when it started playing (what my former market analyst / retirement planner said) the game of Next Quarter Syndrome (NQS) instead of evaluating a company now, and it’s prospectus 5-15 years from now equally. Now it’s all paper pushing to make money, nothing else.
      I do not hold it to be the result of a singular party’s foibles. For all that’s unholy, it’s really the fault of the process and human behavior. The whole process is corrupt. Just as Ike would look at Republican’s today and be considered a weak willed heretic by them, Truman would probably look at the Democratic party and ask what was wrong with them and be considered a heretic.

      1. Take a look at the last 3 Chinese presidents…
        ex mayor of Shanghai a trained electrical engineer that opened up the country.
        a trained geotechical engineer that’s over seen the greatest industrial expansion since the 18th Century
        a trained economist – the current president.
        Now take a look at the last 3 american presidents :
        A crocked lawyer that perjured himself and was nearly impeached, whose wife wore the trousers.
        A ex-drunk oil man / sport team owner – whose daddies buddies had to bail him out before he went bankrupt – Daddy was president and ex CIA, so he had plenty of clout. (and you think the communist party in china is corrupt…. hahaha… i piss my pants laughing).
        A spineless social worker whose wife is smarter than he is, and who knows nothing about real economics and politics. He’s voted in because it’s cool to vote for a black man…. change you can believe in… yeah… like a mighty industrial nation heading down the politically correct road King Louis of France already got guillotined for.
        When you see the president and his wife, hob nobbing with black pop stars like Jay-Z and Beyonce, you know the end is nigh.
        You can’t really call China communist any more, but what is clear is that their non ‘democratic’ system, chooses it’s leaders very carefully and according to skill and intelligence NOT only because they are trendy or well connected.

        1. Let’s not pretend that those Chinese leaders you speak of are any different than our shitty, corrupt leaders. Please. We are rational men here.

        2. They function under a different system, a metrit based one like the US used to be, but they are still corrupt in their own way. US leaders of the past used to be very competent, but still very corrupt. Reagan comes to mind…very competent and experienced, especially in the field of negotiation, but corrupt nonetheless.

        3. Excellent assessment of our last three presidents, but let’s not forget the first two of the three also found ways to dodge the draft.

      2. This is not really true; certain Southern Democrats were pissed off by the pc direction the New Democratic party was going, and came over to the Republican side. But it’s not like the Republican party was siding with landowners against voters; the blame for that can go squarely to the Democratic Party. I hate to say it, but the Democrats have pretty much always been little toadies. The Republicans have only been little toadies for about fifty years, now. 🙂

    6. Yup – and I also think that people receiving benefits from the state, should not be allowed to vote.
      In a perfectly attainable, sane world, here is who votes: male heads of household (or their widows) who own land (for an home or business), and do not receive benefits from the state. Nobody should be paying personal or corporate income taxes (there are other sources of revenue – sales tax, tariffs, excise taxes, etc.). Nobody should be receiving benefits, either, but if they do, they should be ineligible to vote.

      1. What if I am the head of the household.. and I am not a widow?
        What constitutes a household? I rent and pay my own bills…

        1. If you are renting then you are not the head of the household. You are a guest.

        2. The “head of the household” requirement is too ambiguous to be used in this way.
          Id limit voting to those who make a Net positive contribution (over a certain threshold), from their personal income tax, to the tax system. Say 20,000.
          People who are not paying into the tax system should not have influence over how that revenue is spent.

        4. Use your head, sweetie. I know it can be hard.
          You said you rent. Ergo, you are not the head of an household. You are a renter.
          Is your household just you? It’s not an household.
          What’s that? You have 3 cats? Oh… it’s still not an household.
          Are you married with children? Great! Now you have an household.
          Are you a woman? If yes, is your husband still alive? Then you are not the head of an household. Do you have a son of legal age? Then you are not the head of an household.
          What is so hard about it? “Male heads of household (or their widows)” is clear enough for most men to understand. If you had trouble understanding it, you probably shouldn’t vote.

        5. I do not think anybody should be paying income tax. Not even corporations.

        9. Condescending and sexist much? Makes me ever wonder if you ever done an itemized tax return…
          I don’t even have to marry to own property anymore… thank goodness.

        10. OK, I dont disagree, apart from maybe about the corporations not paying tax. However, in a world where we do have personal income tax, I think its a useful and straightforward way to identify who is contributing to Government coffers, and hence, who should get a say in how Government money is spent via voting privileges.
          This is all just idle speculation however. Neither of our desired outcomes, i.e. the abolotion of personal income tax or voting rights being tied to tax revenue thresholds is ever going to happen absent a revolution.

        11. Actually, it does discriminate. Against low income earners, and against those whose taxable incomes are offset by deductions and Government payments. Certain protected demographics (e.g. anyone other than straight white males) are well represented within those categories, so it also “discriminates” in the “bad” way.
          Funnily enough however, this requirement of mine would actually prevent many billionaires (who often structure their tax affairs so they pay less income tax than your average middle class male) from being eligible to vote. Which is part of why I like it so much.

        12. That’s very true, and so long as there is an income tax, I agree with including your rubric for rational discrimination. I was just saying that my ideal is to have no income tax, and the priority then becomes excluding people who are getting benefits. And really, excluding those receiving benefits is just as important as only including those who pay tax. If I “pay taxes” but get twice or thrice that back in benefits (or, even half that), I am benefitting financially and am not really paying taxes in the same way as other people not entitled to those funds.

        13. Yes, it does. It discriminates against people who aren’t paying taxes. These people will often be rather poor.
          Rational discrimination – i.e., making judgments and drawing distinctions in accordance with right reason – is a rational and morally praiseworthy way to behave. The modern disinclination to discriminate against certain people, ideas or actions, is a sign of poor judgment and moral turpitude.

        14. Absolutely. How the hell is it their money to take? When the State charges a tariff for using its port or its roads/waterways, I can get behind that, so long as the tariff is not absurd. But to expect me to accept the premise that the State has a permanent right to a percentage of my income? To hell with that. If we lived in a Natural Law monarchy where the State was ordered to the moral good, I could also tolerate taxation a bit more. When I know that my taxes are helping convicted felons have a fake vagina installed, I have a serious problem with the State thinking they are entitled to rob me for Tito’s transition.

        15. Yeah, and you haven’t had to do that under Anglo-Saxon Common-Law since the 9th century. But that doesn’t mean anybody was foolish enough to give you the vote or to consider you head of household without a dead husband’s say-so!

        16. Yep, agreed, which is why I said it should be based on a Net positive contribution to the system. In my system, this would take into account any payments that come back to you when determining whether you meet the threshold. This is definitely important – the goal is to identify those who are putting in more than they are taking out.
          Tieing voting to personal income tax (as opposed to other types of taxes) associates the vote directly to the person whose work generates the contribution. Its a very straightforward method to identify those who contribute to society that would not require any additional beaurocracy to manage. No personal income tax at all would of course be preferable, and I know that at one point in the not so distant past it didnt exist, and it should be possible to go back to this state by dismantling a lot of the social welfare the Government engages in.

        17. Where the fuck is Thor’s Hammer, for Christ’s sake! That rule seems to have gone away mighty quick.

        19. Actually I believe that in economic terms a household refers simply as a unit : it can be one or more persons (single parent household). Also I don’t believe it has anything to do with being a renter or a landlord.

        20. We weren’t talking about the very pc, open-ended requirements of the government, currently. We were talking about the traditional standards that used to be required to participate in the governance of a city-state, going all the way back to Greece, Rome and the early US: land-owning, male, head of household.

        21. Figure out the context. This site discriminates against women just because of their genitalia…

        22. And men aren’t? That’s laughable… I mean, IQ tests prove that men are dumb in droves, while the other half of men are intelligent in droves… Women actually reflect the normal bell curve…

        23. Traditional? You mean your ideals, which is simply ideals, not reality… It just doesn’t function that way.

        24. I like that kind of discrimination, because well, it is reasonable, and you can get yourself out of that situation… I can’t change my genitiallia, race, or whatever….

        25. women couldn’t own property in america until they started fighting for the right to vote.

        26. You can make the argument that it discriminates against women in particular, and that personal circumstances common to women (e.g. single motherhood, financial dependance on men, lower paying jobs, etc) make it more difficult for women to get out of that situation.
          I have heard this exact argument from women in fact. Its pretty easy to categorise any and all discrimination that negatively impacts women as being “sexist”. It happens all the time, and the reason why is hopefully pretty clear – it plays on the greater levels of sympathy people have for any perceived mistreatment of women (compared to men) and acts as a powerful rhetorical debating tactic in lieu of any actual reasoned arguments.

        27. Just because of their genitalia? Ive never seen any article here that can be summarised as “Women suck because vaginas”. If anything, we’re pro-vagina.
          Any criticism that women receive here is due to other differences they have from men. I know you are aware that such differences exist, you’ve already mentioned the variance in IQ distribution. So why try and act like these differences dont exist, or are irrelevant?

        28. Actually, women’s genitalia are the one thing that prevents them from incurring complete and total discrimination from men, in addition to being the favourite feature of a woman amongst the men on this site.
          The site discriminates against women for their incessant haranguing (a la your many plaintive posts), their failure to make cogent-observations not filtered through their feelings (a la your feelings-based, half-baked and factually incorrect assumption that the only difference between men and women is gonadal), their generally poor knowledge of factual matters (your absurd assumption that women could not own property, which I’m sure a cranky lesbian told you), and the fact that they themselves enjoy being discriminated against (fastest way to get a woman’s interest, is to tell her she can’t be a part of it: “o noes! my social acceptance subroutine is in overdrive! Men. Must. Not. Have. Fun. Without. Me.”).

        29. Bullshit. Get your nose out of feminist textbooks and start reading actual history. Start here, which was simply the first thing that came up when Googling “could women own property in the 1800s?” Men tend to have enough insight into the real world, to know that people often lie, especially when there’s an agenda involved.
          http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/womens-history/essays/legal-status-women-1776%E2%80%931830
          Even black women could own property in the North, *before* the civil war. Your assumption that there was one law on property for women in “America” at that time (when States and territories all had their own laws, sometimes quite different) also reflects a basic ignorance of history. The right of women to hold property in Anglo-Saxon populaces, under one circumstance or another, goes back 1200 years or more – something I know from my graduate studies in Medieval English history. This continued in America for single women and women inheriting from their family’s property. Married women’s property, quite rightly, went to their husband’s ownership and care in marriage. But even that was changed in 1878.
          This is why people hold feminists in contempt. You confirm every negative stereotype about women. It takes a minimum of investment, in the information age, to know something about something.

        30. It has been that way before; it will be that way again. Our society is currently collapsing in decadence, following the predictable patterns that have occurred in many civilizations before.
          Do you think we’re the first people to tolerate homosexuality? To tolerate women taking an active role in public life? Of course not. All great civilizations have done that – while they were nose-diving. A time will come to put the pieces back together.

        31. Maybe it’s because I test in the genius range, and feel that I deserve my rights to make my own damn decisions… So yes, it is irrelevant that I have a smaller brain than you that is compensated by having more white matter giving us the same capacity.
          Look at Japan, women outscore men like crazy, but yet, they are forced to manage the finances and the house of the men so that men are able to be loyal to their country.

        32. Vagina only has the power you give it.
          anything and everything you believe about women is a result of your own delusions. I think you need meds.

        33. Unlike what you claimed earlier, there are reasons other than just possession of a particular set of genitalia as to why we, and others, “discriminate” against women.
          Yes, brain size vs amount of white matter is irrelevant as a factor with which to usefully discriminate between people. However, group IQ distribution, the factor I actually mentioned – as a general example and because you actually referred to it yourself in another comment here – is not irrelevant.
          It explains, for example, why there are greater numbers of men in positions that require a lot of cerebral effort. The reason we dont have a lot of female theoretical physicists is NOT because the people hiring physicists dont like vaginas. Men and women are different, and these differences have real world implications.

        34. No, that’s not why men have a flattened IQ average…It is because the female of the species have to select the best to produce offspring with. It is displayed by every species. Some women choose men based on strength, and other’s choose men based on intelligence… It’s called reproductive fitness optima. Women still played a key role into the modern computer, bluetooth and wifi. Women still out skill men in many intellectual tests. Especially in nations like Japan.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_fitness

        35. You have to take into account that intelligence was only given to the boys because families couldn’t afford to send the daughter to school…
          Intelligence. I dont think that word means what you think it means. Im curious though, who exactly was resposible for only giving intelligence to boys, and how did they do this?
          No, that’s not why men have a flattened IQ average..
          I didnt say anything about a flattened IQ average, I suggested that there are more men at the higher end of the IQ spectrum than there are women. And I didnt even attempt to explain “why” this occurs, because the why is irrelevant – the fact that there IS a difference is what is important to the point at hand.
          It’s like you believe Savant was not the reigning IQ holder for the longest time, SHE had over 170 IQ.
          Thats nice. I just Googled for “person with highest IQ” and clicked the first link which led to sciencedump.com – a list of “10 people with the highest IQ in the world”. Want to guess what criteria 90% of those so listed people have in common?
          Perhaps someone gave them that intelligence when they were boys…

        36. ” Despite the stereotype that boys do better in math and science, girls have made higher grades than boys throughout their school years for nearly a century, according to a new analysis published by the American Psychological Association.
          …
          Other countries or regions represented by more than one sample included Norway, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Taiwan, Malaysia, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Africa and Finland. Countries represented by one sample included Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Mexico, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Jordan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Slovenia.
          …
          The study reveals that recent claims of a “boy crisis,” with boys lagging behind girls in school achievement, are not accurate because girls’ grades have been consistently higher than boys’ across several decades with no significant changes in recent years, the authors wrote.
          “The fact that females generally perform better than their male counterparts throughout what is essentially mandatory schooling in most countries seems to be a well-kept secret, considering how little attention it has received as a global phenomenon,” said co-author Susan Voyer, MASc, also of the University of New Brunswick.”
          http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

        39. Yes, Marilyn vos Savant, a woman with a high IQ. Im aware of her existence, I just dont attach the same significance to this vary rare outlier as you seem to. What point are you trying to make by mentioning her? That high IQ women exist? I never suggested otherwise.
          And you suggest that girls get better grades in school? Setting aside my inherent mistrust of all social science given the idealogical bias that pervades the field, I’ll stipulate the point for the purpose of discussion. Now lets consider the significance of girls getting good grades. Grades mostly demonstrate an ability to sit still, do as you’re told, work on the assigned work regardless of its interest to you or its utility, and regurgitate back to the teacher what they tell you. Good grades basically only indicate how good you are at being educated in a particular, very rigid, manner.
          Consider instead some real world metrics of success such as scientific breakthroughs, inventions, cures for diseases, and starting breakout companies. Which sex is better at that? Men are the sex that is best able to utilise the gifts they have to achieve big results in the real world.
          Your source to “prove” that women outperform men in the workplace is also laughable. Its based on a single survey that considers one aspect of workplace performance (leadership) and measures it via peoples subjective opinions of men and womens performance against a set of fuzzy criteria. Why is it so ridiculous to use something like this as “proof” of one sex’s superiority? Heres a different survey I just found that says the opposite of what yours did.
          http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singaporeans-say-men-make/1116554.html
          Im still waiting to hear how boys were given all the intelligence by the way.

        40. Making excuses… Not good. Adults don’t accept excuses, because it is through ALL grades… you mean teenage boys can’t sit still either?!

        41. LOL! Im not making excuses for teenage boys dislike of sitting still and behaving themselves while being force fed useless drivel. I dont consider that to be a worthwhile ability, so why try and “excuse” the lack of it? Was my disdain for this not already clear from my last comment?
          You want to claim victory in the “sitting still and keeping quiet” competition for team women, be my guest.
          Maybe you’d like to tell me though why women dont fare as well as men when it comes to inventing stuff, starting successful companies, and making important scientific discoveries? But dont give me any excuses about the Patriarchy or oppression, because that would be … Not good. Adults dont accept excuses.

        42. Bwahhahaha! So you’ve added more to your previous comment since I replied. Your argument now seems to be “Women are better, because I say so, and because you’re an idiot who can’t get laid and cant deal with change.” Good show. Resorting to insults is always a great way to show you’re on the winning side of an argument 🙂
          You know what evidence I have to say that men are better at the worker/builder/provider role? All of recorded civilised history. Nearly everything that this advanced society relies on to function was invented, built or maintained by men, and its always been this way. Women are good at many things, and better than men at a number of them, but at this, no. Feminists set women up for failure by encouraging women to base their self worth on trying to beat men in this arena, because mens historical track record of success is quite clear.
          As well as over emphasising the importance of the provider role, Feminists tend to diminish the importance of the motherhood/nurturer role. Indeed, they consider this role to be oppressive, an insult, yet this role is just as essential to civilisation as the provider role. And a woman performing this role well arguably provides a greater benefit to society than does your average provider male, because the majority of men are not doing spectacular stuff like curing diseases or inventing electricity.

        45. I doubt it. Women already outnumber men, so women will become more and more involved which is great! I think you need both sexes making decisions together. We arent mentally wired the same way and it takes different perspectives to come to the best decision. Womens brains are proven to be more complex and active in all regions moreso than male brains. Female brains are great mental assets. Whether or not your sexist, close minded (which speaks volumes about your mental capacity) puny little brain can process it is something you will have to work through on your own.

        46. Idk why you’re even wasting your time mayz. From the look of these comments most of these men seem to hail from the low iq half of the male sex.

        48. I usually ignore comments made by retarded leftists like you, but i have to say that that was hilariously ignorant comment, you snivelling little mangina.
          Males are by far more intelligent and logical than women, who are little more than children. Women are very emotional, which is a sign of mental inferiority, as is their lack of ability to think logically.
          Everything that was great in western civilisation was built by men. Every great civilisation in the past was created by men, not women, because women are incapable of logic and solidarity. If you weren’t a pants on head retarded leftist, you would know this.
          Take your politically correct, liberal bullshit somewhere else you little piece of shit, nobody gives two fucks what you cultural marxists go to say.
          Scram.

        49. Could you send me a picture of your pussy?
          I want to evaluate your worth in a brothel.

        50. Will you eat my shit, drink my piss and let me vomit in your face if i pay you five dollars, whore?
          Then again, you look like a person who would do it for free.

        51. No, dumbass, we discriminate against women because you are fucking stupid sluts.
          Get it right.

        52. I think you need a good, hard spanking, and brutal anal fuck afterwards, with all the hairpulling and facespitting.
          That’s all you women are good for. Accept it.

        54. Don’t even bother debating with a broodmare, bro. Women are nothing but cum dumpsters.

        56. Next Elliot Rodger, right there people. Maybe we should put him in therapy to prevent him from going psycho.

        59. lol. So because i called you stupid, i MUST be a whore. ha. Idiot logic. and honestly I didn’t know the little grey person in that box LOOKED like anything. but if you say so.

        60. lol. Obviously you give a lot of fucks about what i have to say. About four paragraphs worth. How is being emotional a sign of mental inferiority. Emotion stems from a part of the brain that is shown to be underdeveloped in men. so if anything men are mentally inferior. Now it pains me to say that because i don’t hate men. Just people like you. And of course everything was built by men because for the longest women weren’t allowed to do anything lest she be disowned, dishonored or burned at the stake, Thanks to scared little boys like you not wanting any competition. they validated their boys only club using a backward ass concept called religion, which surprise! men wrote those books too! So sorry, History doesn’t prove women’s inferiority, only mens cowering and selfishness with a superiority complex thrown over it. if you were trying to be intimidating, you failed, BUT you weeeeere very funny maximus. I can’t even take you seriously with u throwing around the word retarded so many times. You sound like an angry 10 year old. but watch it! having a temper is a sign of low mental capacity, so you might wanna get that checked out bro.

        61. you are kinda missing a huge flaw in your argument: “Feminists set women up for failure by encouraging women to base their self worth on trying to beat men in this arena, because mens historical track record of success is quite clear.” Right there: “historical track record”. Well considering the historical track record is highly flawed due to bias and natural/man made disasters (like destroying documents on purpose or destruction of records due to natural disasters) you cant really use it as a valid point. Women most likely would’ve played just as important roles in areas where men have dominated in history if they were allowed the chance, but they weren’t purely due to prejudice and false assumptions/science. There are things i will not argue about when it comes to the difference between males and females, for example: Women cannot build as much muscle due to a higher minimum body fat percentage than men. And women have a harder time burning off fat and building muscle. So physically women can achieve approximately the same top physical performance as men, but they must work harder at it. And that works both ways. Women due to more flexible skeletal frame, are (id say extremely) more flexible then men with less effort/practice. Naturally women are more agile and men or stronger, but either sex can achieve a strong ability to be both strong and agile. Women and men are potentially equal in all facets of life, however each sex is more inclined towards certain roles/abilities. One major flaw that id say makes males inferior (to some extent) is the Y chromosome and its contribution to a higher rate of genetic problems for men. All in all men and women are equal without a doubt.

        63. If the husband is dead and there is no son of age, the wife/widow would certainly be head of household.

        65. Oh, I assumed that was obvious, especially on a site like this.
          Reason and nature tell us that men are more equipped with the characteristics necessary to lead a family; they also teach us that there must be a leader. “Democracy” in a marriage means a constant threat of civil war. Women tend to bring a node of emotional issues and self-involvement to everything they do, whereas men, both by design and by adaptation, are more prepared to set themselves and their needs aside indefinitely – almost permanently – in order to simply focus on the common good. Women like to *feel* as though they are concerned for the common good, but in practice this often results in the mere justification of self-pandering after the fact. I.e., the woman wanting a divorce who tells herself “my kids want me to be happy, and this situation where I’m always unhappy is not good for them.” This is a classic female thought pattern – “I want what I want, but I feel a teensy bit like a selfish witch for that; ultimately, what matters to me is not what my children really need or want, but whether I can find a way to eliminate the bad feels for not giving them what they need and want. As long as I can short-circuit my bad feels into good feels, I will assume that what I’m doing is really a good thing – because things are always as good or bad in reality, as are the feelings that accompany them.” Objectivity, logic, self-sacrifice (without a martyr complex, i.e., true and absolute self-sacrifice without ANY thought for one’s self) and disinterested impartiality, are simply not a part of 99.9% of women’s skill set. Have I seen women make sacrifices for their kids? Sure. Have I seen them doing it without feeling like a martyr, or without a bit of resentment, or without feeling like this “wasn’t fair,” or even without feeling a little bit good about themselves, as though they were super gals for doing what needs to be done? Almost never; indeed, they make an whole fetish out of “working moms” or “single moms” or some other variation of “women doing the bare minimum that should be expected of them,” and somewhat badly at that. When men do such things, their internal monologue tends to be more or less like this: “Shit happens, that’s life. I brought these kids into the world, it’s my job to do what needs to be done.” They do this without feeling good about themselves, and find it contemptible that other people want a gold star for it, or go on Oprah and cry about how hard it is to do what every filthy peasant in history has done before them.
          I know that some men can have emotional problems; a good friend of mine has a father who was significantly less able than his wife, relatively speaking (at a certain point in time), to make the best decisions for the family; the wife would have made better ones (at that time). Yet a woman at her best is still not meant for this role, is often unhappy doing it (even if she makes it a point of pride that she *does* do it), and will do far better if she finds a way to let her man step up, rather than attempting to do his job for him. The exception does not make a new rule.
          In fact, though it is relatively un-pc to say these things, and though the popular depiction of evil patriarchy would try to convince us that it involves bloodthirsty men marital-raping their wives and terrorizing their children with arbitrary acts of violence, I think all of us know the truth from our everyday experiences in our own homes, and the homes of our friends: when I was growing up, in both mine and my friends’ houses, it was always the mother who was screaming, who was inflicting her emotional issues on everyone around her, who was slapping people and hitting them with spoons and whatnot, etc. It was always the mother who wanted to spend money frivolously, consume conspicuously, eat out every night, spend all the free time doing “activities” of one sort or another, etc. It is necessary for a man to be in charge, so that peace and quiet, good order, self-restraint and impartial management of the home’s necessary affairs can proceed, and so that the feminine tendency to go nuts, when give a wide berth, can be hemmed in.
          People will point to the fact that men have “checked out” of this process, and it has been left to women. That is not true; men have been driven out by the novel expectation that they should not take the lead but “cooperate” with their “partners.” Yet, women are emotional totalitarians; when they say “cooperation,” they really mean “I will feel entitled to ‘have my say,’ and this means that I will bitch and sulk and insinuate and resent whenever any decision goes contrary to ‘my say,’ implying that ‘my say’ counts for nothing if it is not always implemented. And if things turn out wrong when ‘my say’ is ignored, I will never let it drop that I wanted to do things differently – whereas you had better not be so unreasonable as to blame me if things go in a way ‘we didn’t expect’ after following my advice! And if you get frustrated with this state of affairs, it will be because you are not a team player and want to get everything your way. Any attempt to argue rationally and to point out that your say is routinely ignored, and it should therefore follow that I don’t regard your say as being worth a damn, will be met with emotional rhetoric, assertions that ‘you just don’t get it,’ and complaints that you are ‘mansplaining’ and trying to make this important emotional issue about “respect” into a mere matter of logic and brains and machine-like coldness. The truth is that I actually do want you to just take charge, and would respect you and be attracted to you if you simply took charge; but as long as there is the expectation that I should be involved in this process in an authoritative fashion, my girlish pride won’t let me cede the territory without a fight. I’m going to push it and see whether you have any balls or not. I will be mad, at first, if you whip your balls out and put them on the table and tell me that the decision is made. But I’ll be even angrier, if I discover that you don’t have any in the first place.
          Men don’t want to be involved in that kind of drama, and they instinctively despise the duplicity and emotional betrayal involved. On a level, men understand that women act this way because they are almost completely victimized by their own contradictory impulses and feelings. They cannot think their way out of them; they can only feel their feelings. Men understand this, intellectually, but they also chafe at the fact that this means the women in their lives rarely love them in the same kind of direct and guileless way, as men love their women. Indeed, the woman’s activity can almost not truly be called love, but is rather a mere affection which will be more or less constant, depending on a whole array of circumstances. A man’s life with his woman, then, is not one where he can reasonably expect a guileless, emotional fidelity come what may; he realizes that he needs to anticipate and manage his woman’s emotions without the expectation that she can or will do this herself in a reasonable way. Some women are better and worse, obviously, but this general trend has always held true in my experience, even in the best.
          When it comes to leading the relationship, men and women both want to be in charge; the difference is that a man will simply say so and, when he is in charge, he really does tend to consider what other people want and has an instinct for justice and even truly disinterested self-sacrifice. A woman is capable of moments of “sacrifice,” usually because she feels good about herself for making the gesture and looks forward to the happy moment shared (i.e., it’s not so much a sacrifice as a decision to forgo some pleasure here in favour of some pleasure there). The rest of the time, she says she wants “cooperation,” and then makes this cooperation so unbearable that she gets her way on every point, the men resigning from the process in disgust. She both loves this, and hates it. Everyone else? Well, there’s no admixture; they only hate it.
          That’s why women should follow; they are not made to lead and, even when they think they want to, if they get what they want they will have a love-hate relationship with the results. And women tend to go nuts when their emotions pull them in every direction. Men feel emotions more deeply than women do, I’m convinced, but they prefer to keep their emotions deep by keeping them interior and ruminating upon them in a more focused way, with the reason predominating. “Still waters run deep,” is the saying. When necessary, a man either corrects or neutralizes his emotional impulses and has an instinct for self-sacrifice in this regard, truly without keeping a balance sheet in his head of past wrongs, and without feeling the need for an emotional payoff in the here and now (in terms of feeling good about himself, or receiving praise and appreciation) when he does something sacrificial for the greater good of his family. About the only time a man is liable to feel resentment, is if his sacrifices are met with open disrespect from those for whom he sacrifices. Past the demonstration of basic respect, a man needs no reward for his efforts. He of course loves his family, though, and is glad of their affection or demonstrations of appreciation. But this is not why he does things for them, and he has no expectation of such things as his “due.”

        66. I think you’d be surprised with the thoughts of men with 130+ IQ. We do get it, we do see it coming, and we see why it is happening and where it came from. Trust me it is the smart men talking about this because we are the ones crapped on and beat down the most by your crap pseudo utopia. The reset is coming gentlemen.

        68. Apparently tax laws favor the rich…..
          consequently many rich people pay no taxes!
          should they be allowed to vote?

        69. You pay taxes -> you can vote ? How can this simple chain of thoughts be too hard for you to get ?! I say : you should not vote whatsoever; Reason ? too retarded.

        70. Dont know why u bring up homosexuality here. THe most intelligent and
          creative men were homosexual, actually science confirmed a significant
          correlation between homosexuality ( IN MEN only tho ) and intelligence.
          So :
          Who would care about men bein homosexual, because they
          contribute over the top to civilisation and technology. Very the
          opposite tho with homosexual women : They are amongst the most
          disturbed, the most aggressive and absolute most useless pieces human
          garbage and i would NEVER ( EVER! ) trust or allow any child to
          homosexual women ! Again science here shows the most disturbed childfren
          come from homosexual female couples, followed by single mothers,
          whereas on the other hand, single fathers bring up kids with almost the
          same sanity level like normal hetere couples. homosexual fathers are
          amongst the same range. so i see no problem with men – WHATEVER they do –
          but with women !!!

        72. Well, if you rent, you aren’t paying property taxes on your home are you? Why should you get to vote to raise my taxes to fund a new park? Or a city pool? Or something else YOU want…but want me to pay for?

        74. LOL…. Women reflect the “Normal” bell curve….because women flooded into education, rewrote everything and made Women the standard of “Normal”

        75. Property tax is the way to go. If you own property…you own a piece of the community and you are taxes to maintain the community. That earns you the right to vote on the maintenance of the community…..you PAID for that right. If you do not own property, you do not own a piece of the community and you have not Paid for the right to vote on how the money should be spent.

        76. Ummm, I just have one question (I know I’m a very feeble woman) what about domestic abuse, because that was a giant problem all through those centuries.

        78. I read all your stuff and I agree with it completely. We need more people like you, so please, have about 10 children so we can start evening the score. I’ll also make my fair share of enlightened babies. 🙂

        79. EVERY TIME one of our men makes a valid argument against Mayz, a ‘guest’ conveniently pops up with some uninspired cooked up drivel that you’d expect from the evil patriarch from a feminist mannifesto. Mayz is being beaten with facts, then signs out of the site, writes a false-flag bullshit comment that makes us look bad, then responds to THAT instead of the valid argument. Mayz knows we’re right and can’t fight our arguments, but her hatred of men turns her to trickery.

        80. Thanks; I’m actually a Catholic monk, now, so I’m celibate and always will be. However, I’ve convinced several married couples of the Church’s teaching on contraception, and on the social realities of modernity more generally. I’m taking credit for the twelve babies that have resulted (so far; many more to come, I’m sure). That’s more kids than I was likely to have on my own, and the married couples have all become fairly “red-pilled” to reality, both by conversations I have with them, and by the general state of affairs, these days.. 😉

        81. Are you able to retain your feces long enough to get to the loo?
          “Homosexual FATHERS??” Did you fail Biology 101?

        82. Are you able to retain your feces long enough to get to the loo?
          “Homosexual FATHERS??” Did you fail Biology 101?.

        83. Any property you think you own is by the good graces of…men. Foolish men looking only at the short term, but men. You cannot retain possession of your stuff but by the protection of men.

        84. Any property you think you own is by the good graces of…men. Foolish men looking only at the short term, but men. You cannot retain possession of your stuff but by the protection of men..

      2. Anyone receiving any forum of public money should be ineligible to vote, including all public sector employees.

        1. Ditto that. My parents are both government employees, and are completely subservient little statists.

      3. Yup – and I also think that people receiving benefits from the state, should not be allowed to vote.
        Benefits including a government ‘salary’.
        Because people who get $$ from the government, have one incentive and that is to increase their take. And they do that by voting.
        Will a teacher or public union employee ever vote against a tax increase that would increase his pay or improve his pension package?
        FUCK NO.
        As long as those who get a piece of the pie are allowed to vote they will always vote for more pie, even if they need to use force to take your piece that you worked to get.
        If you take $$ from any level of government in any way then you don’t vote. Only people who should vote are those who receive no largesse from the government, who took that by force from other people.
        2¢

      4. You do know that many people who recieve benefits also work right? And work hard. But minimum wage is a bitch. Instead of being condescending towards those people, do something constructive with helping minimum wage become living wage.or fight these greedy companies that insist on paying their employees as little as possible. Life isnt always so black and white. Regardless of what they tell you, everyone is NOT always afforded the same opportunities. I know because i was born on the other side of that lie. People need a leg up, sometimes, especially if there are people like you waiting at the top to kick them back down.

        1. I have nothing against helping people, and think it is laudable to do so.
          I don’t think the government should do it, because their “help” is actually an hindrance.
          Past that, my point was that people receiving state benefits should not vote. There is a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with simply wanting to “kick [poor folk] back down.” I also think that the owners of major corporations, or people that have government jobs and collect salaries as high as 500K for managing a VA hospital (like the people in Phoenix) should be ineligible to vote. It has nothing to do with being “poor;” it has everything to do with the conflict of interest in voting when you directly benefit financially from the government.

        3. lol. Thats all you got huh? so sad. If thats all that was rolling around in your brain you coulda kept it to yourself you stupid piece of shit. Well random brainless idiot #6201, it kinda seems to me that u and a lot of these other guys want women to shut up and fade into the background so YOU can get back to secretly sucking cocks. go figure.

        1. No, we would be going forward into the 21st century with principles that actually worked, from a saner time. The 20th century has been an objectively horrible time for culture and civilization, even if we have iphones, now.
          And in point of fact, our stupidity, barbarism and anti-human behaviour will soon be taking us back to a situation much more like the 12th century. I would be surprised if, an hundred years from now, Americans still had widespread access to the technology to make steel. When our society collapses, and the power goes out, I think we will be returning to a very pre-industrial standard of living for a good while. Our lives have become so dependent upon the technology we wield, that we no longer understand even the fundamental principles of basic agriculture and simple machines or metalworking, by and large.

        2. ” The 20th century has been an objectively horrible time for culture and civilization, even if we have iphones, now.”
          The 20th century has been over for almost 14 years now. Perhaps you meant to write something else.
          And I agree we should move away from the whole “let anyone vote” thing but I’m just saying politically it’s absolutely unimaginable in the foreseeable future.

        3. No, I meant to say the 20th century, since that was when these ideas really took off and became the establishment. As you’ve probably noticed, we haven’t changed course in these first few years of the 21st century. But I believe we will change in this century, which is why my focus was on the century just past.

      7. On an individual level, for the beneficiaries of gifts from strangers, their “voting” is called “mugging.”

      8. On an individual level, for the beneficiaries of gifts from strangers, their “voting” is called “mugging.”

    7. Get the hell out of dodge while you still can. I have a hunch that the American government will make it more difficult to get out of the gulag. Laws like FATCA and the changes that have been made to the process of renouncing US citizenship are just the start. They do not want you to leave.

    9. If voters had to be educated ,land owners (I.E. Tax payers) in order to vote to raise taxes….we’d have far lower taxes paying for far fewer welfare leaches.

    10. Taxes were imposed on imports, particularly manufactured goods, which is much of what the American (USA) “Civil War” was about.
      Yes, within the states taxes on land and improvements were a major source of revenue. The federal government got its revenue largely from import duties and beverage alcohol excises.

  7. This article is a daydream. I am not going to sit around and dream of this happening. I really wish it would, but we all know it won’t. Everything is going to go downhill for western civilization, and as it does it will only get more liberal and pussified. Off-shore your assets and get the fuck out.

    1. And goddamn, those two bitches on the cover of the article make my skin crawl.

      1. You have no idea how easy it was to find a picture of feminists that proved my point 🙂

    3. Yes, it’s more of a wish and a few observations than a plan. A 1500 word article on ROK isn’t going to save civilisation. But don’t knock daydreams – every human achievement started out as an idea in someone’s head.
      That’s why the feminist and SJW types are so desperate to control the terms of discussion. ROK gives us a place to talk about subjects like this that would be forbidden in the mainstream media, and outlawed on a modern university campus. Free speech is a powerful thing because ideas have consequences.

      1. Exactly…..And all it takes for evil to grow is for good men to do nothing. May The Force Be With You.

  8. I would even go further and say: get rid of democracy itself. A system that values the voice/opinion of the learned man the same as that of the fool is by definition a corrupt system. Giving women the vote was indeed a major mistake. Women had and have far less ‘skin in the game’ then men. The moment they start paying into the system as much as men do (women as a whole are a nett negativ i.e. extract more than they put in) and risk their lives ass much a men do…then their say should be of equal importance. Until that time your husbands or dads vote is your vote.

    2. I can see the appeal, but on the whole I think Winston Churchill was right about democracy: “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried”
      At the same time, I can understand why the Chinese look at modern Western democracy and where it’s taking us, and want no part of it.

      1. In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
        -Aristotle

  9. honestly i have only heard women outright say in plain English that they didn’t care about the NSA spying.
    but don’t you be denying them their free birth control and abortions, now! war on women!

    1. Women are inherent narcissists, they’re probably flattered that someone is watching them.

    2. The War on Women stuff was insane. So, nominally adult American women with jobs were complaining that it’s anti-woman if the taxpayer doesn’t treat them like children?
      But women are suckers for simple emotional slogans. Even Hitler’s most ardent supporters were women.

      1. The vast majority of them are slaves to their emotions. Very irrational creatures.

        1. That’s precisely why they were not allowed in the political arena for thousands of years…with a few exeptions.

      2. hell, let’s just manipulate women back to our side. If even hitler can do it, we might as well try.

    1. so when you’re wife divorces you and takes your house and kids she’ll have the vote and you won’t

      1. If only property owners were allowed to vote, most of those laws would be changed in short order since most of the FSA wouldn’t have a vote. I don’t have kids and my wife/I are not planning on any (8 years into our marriage). Also, note I said paid taxes. If the wife is just living for free, she isn’t paying taxes.

        1. true perhaps, but one needs to think carefully about consequences as they may not always be what’s hoped for

        2. That’s how it was setup for most of this country’s history and it worked fine for the most part.

        3. What a fucking idiot.
          Why the fuck would you marry a woman if you don’t want kids?
          Anything she does for you could be done better by yourself or a professional or any number of hotter younger gals.
          Married and not reproducing. What a sad sack of shit.

        4. I was a blue pull idiot when I got married–we agree there. I was also 24 and naive. In general though I think a marriage without kids > marriage with one in todays society. She gets less if she leaves, less stress, less expense, etc. She’s also significantly less bitchy than all my married friends with kids. But sure if I could do everything over–no way I’d be married. Especially if I had known I was going to go from making ~45k/year to ~175k/yr in that 8 years. I consider the cost of alimony vs staying married all the time.

        5. If you don’t have kids you miss out on the only thing in our lives that has meaning: parenthood. Besides, we white redpilled people NEED to have kids, and lots of them or there will be no glorious redpilled westerners left to tell the tale.

        6. Won’t be something that concerns me much if I don’t have kids, eh? I disagree that kids are the only thing in lives that have meaning. My goal is to retire between 45-50 – wouldn’t be possible with kids

  11. I say stop them voting for x-factor. Rubbish pop is exactly what Adorno wanted to destroy western civilization, and simon cowell could do us all an instant favour by invalidating female voting

    1. That would just be cruel. Besides, stop women voting for the X-Factor and the winners would just be chosen by gay men and children.

  12. I havent even read this yet, but I agree 100% and have thought so for at least 2-3 years now. Since women got the vote, the country has sped downward at a rapid pace. More wars, more social spending, less of a gentlemanly, simple government. Women dont know how to handle politics really at all (thats why they say libertarians are so lacking in women, so are all ideologies!) All political groups have mostly men, even those purporting to be mostly men. Women just vote for the hot guy or the charismatic guy, whether or not his policies are good. If they do vote on an issue or two, its a stupid issue.
    You know its bad if a homosexual says the country was ruined with womens suffrage:

    Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension
    of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously
    tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist
    democracy” into an oxymoron.

    1. Thanks for the comment.
      Also, I would note that women were very responsible for campaigning for WWI and WWII, two of the worst wars and two of the biggest damages to civilization. They also were behind prohibition and all that puritanical stuff later on in the Progressive Era.
      Ultimately, most females involved in politics are statists, just like the majority of people, only I find female statism very egregious and pharisaical, especially like when it is exercised through prohibitionism.

      3. Wow I had no idea about World War I, but that doesnt surprise me in the least bit. I was arguing yesterday with a schmuck about this, who claimed that patriarchy is an aberration of the past 200 years. lulz. Tell the feminists that. While women may not make up the rulers in a large proportion their votes and “influence” ensures that horrid candidates get elected.

      4. I should have mentioned this originally, but the Tony Abbott government of Australia is an example of how things should be at most. The only woman in his cabinet is the chief diplomat. She can cluck with the other chickens and make sure wars dont happen.

    2. Something else interesting. Look at pictures of politicians WW2 and before. These were hard men. Then compare them to pansies like Cameron, Milibrand and such. They even look feminine.

      2. Cameron is disgusting. “Men” today look so faggy. Even Margaret Thatcher was more a man than Cameron could ever be and she prided herself on being a proper lady. She seems to be the rare exceptional woman capable of leading.

    3. You ARE NOT a libertarian… Libertarians are opposites of Authoritarian, and if you want to control me, a libertarian, you definitely are NOT a libertarian.

  13. People on welfare or food stamps should forfeit their right to vote until they can present an income tax return from employment. At one time men who owned land were only allowed to vote, men who didn’t, weren’t…the rationale was the consequence of the vote greatly affected those who had far more to lose by bad governance.
    i.e. No vote if you don’t have skin in the game!
    People on welfare only vote in more welfare programs, just like women, eventually the collective weight of these programs will destroy the West.

    1. Darnit. I just suggested that above. Great minds think alike and you got there first.
      I would add that people on government labor rolls shouldn’t be allowed to vote including government workers and even the military. In theory, I think those in the military are the few who truly have earned the right to vote, but the problem with exceptions to a rule is that then people start quibbling about them. I would argue that if an exception had to be made, those in the military who have served in combat should be allowed to vote. I know a lot of guys (and especially women) who signed up for the military to get a cushy technical job in Hawaii or stateside.

    2. How about we get rid of all forms of the State? Perhaps it is true that
      Men may ,on average,vote less destructively than Women.But so
      what?Government is inherently destructive,just to different degrees.It’s
      like saying,a red shade of lipstick will make an obese woman look more
      presentable,compared to a purple shade;but that cannot mask the inherent
      yuk of the land whale.

      1. Hmmm are you promoting a form of Anarchy/anarchism ? ??? I am trying to read more about anarchist movements….

        1. Historically, it has proven to be the only form of “government” with any kind of staying power. It won’t be different this time.

        2. Insurance companies can pay for police to reduce claims
          Freight companies can pay for roads, so their trucks don’t get banged up.
          Companies can pay for law courts so they can dispute with each other, private courts with good reputations, will be much more efficient and offer fairer judgements without influence and politics involved.
          schools can be paid and run by parents, since they aren’t getting raped with 30-40-50% taxes, plus sales tax, fuel tax, etc. etc.
          Airlines will pay for airports doh.
          Most of the Government tax money is spent on it’s own admin and bogus white elephant projects, plus massive and stupid defense projects, for equipment that rarely sees action, and is only needed because of all the money being wasted on the web of bureaucracy, instead of sharing the wealth.
          Lawyers and Accountants will largely be out of business and people will have to learn real science and real skills.
          Fucking Paradise… even if it’s gritty and real.

        3. Agree.Also,it does not need to be pre-decided how current government run amenities will be handled if Government disappears.That’s the beauty of the market,it will emerge in ways that no central planner, regardless of their genius, can ever fathom.
          For example a Road is just a commodity like House.Where people need it they will be built.No government official has ever built a road,EVER.They simply give permission or auction contracts for actual engineers to do so.And coerce the money out us to pay first themselves the majority and then the road-builders.
          Don’t ever fall into the trap of having to provide a solution to Statist of how things will be run if their beloved Slave owners disappeared.That makes you no better than them,since it is now your vision that rules the world instead of theirs.In a free market, multiple solutions will be provided and the most customer pleasing will become the standard.

        5. Isn’t he the anarcho-capitalist liberatarian fellow?? His thoughts and ideas are compelling.

        6. It will look a lot like the Dark ages, when Anarchy practically reigned, with a bunch of pseudo kings and viking raids.

        8. I can help you with that. And you’re in luck, because anarchism is becoming more and more respected as a valid and, likely, practically useful form of governance and philosophical thought.
          Start here, search for: Stefan Moleneux, voluntarism. Voluntarism is the “nice guy” way to say anarchism, and you may want to use that term when talking to people with no political or philosophical background–people who think ‘anarchy’ means ‘chaos’ or ‘bombs’. These people have been hopelessly brainfucked.
          The mistake people make is in thinking that anarchy means no rules and no cohesive systems. This is a flawed view. Instead, anarchism suggests that all interactions be undertaken voluntarily. So, imagine that you are playing football with your friends. There are rules to the game, and if you refuse to follow them you won’t be playing football. So you follow the rules, yet nobody is “forcing” you to play. This is anarchy with rules.

        11. Thank you sir. Will look up your references. Alot of libertarians have anarchist leanings. The “anarchist” label has a bad rep . I think it means “people working shit out for themselves” which we used to do in this country. Think about the Great Depression. Hard times for sure but was there mass death and starvation? No. The big guv types and FDR fetishists would have you believe it was the govt that saved the country and prevented collapse. No, people back then did for themselves and did for each other. True charity. I would listen to stories from my grandmother. She worked as a waitress. The owner of the diner would give her extra food. Hobos ( now they are called homeless) would come by and they would work for food. Do chores and wash dishes for a meal. We ( Americans) still rise to the occasion e.g disasters and it is a great thing to see.

        12. You know I really wish I could believe in the happy society you envision with your ideals. Unfortunately age, experience and the right understanding of human nature prevents me. Perhaps you could say my critical reasoning won’t allow it.
          Firstly, your ideaology pre supposes every human to be on the same moral footing. This completely neglects genetic, biological, racial, gender related facts which are way too broad in scope to ever assume that because there is a need….in your case a road…that people will just out of the need and good of their hearts for a free market open society build a road there.
          While there may be a road built there….it might be blocked with armed gunmen and only allowed pass if you belong to their group or paid them etc.
          This notion that the free market is some perfect expression of the human will and if only there were no constraints on it then we would have the perfect society is false.
          Again people are only going to do what is in their best interest and perhaps the interests of their immediate group/family. This might mean extermination for your family/group depending on resource availability and other factors. This is human nature and this is not changing….save some unknown catalyst.
          This right understanding of human nature is the reason that there is need for laws and governance. Men who build societies that succeed know this and that is why we have history of them. You believe that humans are inherently good and that is a false and even dangerous belief quite common among naive youths and females.

        13. That’s not anarchy that’s feudalism. True anarchy looks much much worse.
          I imagine true anarchy to look something like the way Aristotle described how spartan women behaved when their city was attacked. In fact he blamed the downfall of sparta on that.

        14. Rather not go into a world where I have to have a relationship with one man in order to protect myself from being raped by another man… or have men around who need to have guns to keep the property safe from thieves because there is no one to stop them from doing what they want… I am much happier paying a tax to have a peace officer.
          Anarchy literally means, in etymology, without (a or an) government (archy).

        15. >>>>Firstly, your ideaology pre supposes every human to be on the same moral footing. <<>>While there may be a road built
          there….it might be blocked with armed gunmen and only allowed pass if you belong to their group or paid them etc.<>>>This notion that the free market is some perfect expression of the human will and if only there were no constraints on it then we would have the perfect society is false.<>This right understanding of human nature is the reason that there is need for laws and governance.<> You believe that humans are inherently
          good and that is a false and even dangerous belief quite common among naive youths and females.<<
          But not as dangerous as folks who don’t understand what the free market is,have all sorts of weird attributions of it and have a very disillusioned estimate of their own understanding of human nature.

        16. I think you covered the main retorts here. I almost laughed aloud when I read, “While there may be a road built
          there….it might be blocked with armed gunmen and only allowed pass if you belong to their group or paid them etc.” I’m thinking, man that’s the goddamn government. You ever tried driving down the road with no licenses or plates?
          The idea that men are evil, so therefore a few men should wield a monopoly on the instigation of violence…it’s retarded.

        18. Sorry, Honey, you’re in that world now. You’re a member of the species you seem to loathe.

      2. There will always be a state. Once two or three people with power sit down and discuss how things should be run, there is a “state”. Humans cannot help to organize everything.

        1. Except this is not true.The State is the most disorganized Organization ever conceived.Any one who genuinely cares about organizing anything will avoid the State.
          Secondly,people simply don’t acquire the power of monopoly of force,which is the real defining character of the State,regardless of how rich or smart they are.Such power is given to the State,by the people themselves,which is what women have done by way of vote.With no State even the most deranged feminist cannot take away your sovereignty.

        2. With no state the most deranged can do whatsoever they wish to weaker people. You fail to see both sides of the coin and it sounds like you are regurgitating ideas you heard from Molyneaux etc.
          I agree with alot of those ideas on the monopoly of force. But it falls so short when it fails to recognize the origins of that monopoly…in the human heart. I think there are many reasons for that some of which I listed in an earlier reply so I hesitate to call that good or bad it just IS.

        3. With no state the most deranged can do whatsoever they wish to weaker
          people.<>You fail to see both sides of the coin and it sounds like you
          are regurgitating ideas you heard from Molyneaux etc.<<
          Au contraire,as shown above it is you who has not considered anything other than some garble from Molyneaux,which you erroneously assume every free market advocate must be quoting.

        4. Now (2017) the Islamic (not only a religion but a total “church”-state system) invasion the derangement is institutionalized. And being defended and welcomed by feministic women and their effeministic sycophants.
          Don’t the wymyn know that if their beloved Islamists seize power that they will be gangraped (nonmuslim women are all whores anyway) as is being done already in effeminist countries like Sweden, and their girly parts will be excised (FGM)?

      3. Self Governance only happens when necessity and circumstance dictate. This historically means much much smaller agrarian type societies. Even then there are forms of governance.
        You want self governance? Go live off the land in some remote corner of the earth because that is truly the only way its gonna happen.
        When people gather together they form governing bodies and you cant seperate the human from the need to be governed. Your rosy anarchist ideal society is just that…..a dream that never was and never will happen in the fashion you hope for.
        You are anti patriarchy with that too.

    3. Something like 90% of the population today is getting paid without doing anything productive these days. Singling out those who are on a formal “welfare” program as somehow different from someone who sits around on Wall Street being spoon fed by the Fed, just shows a lack of depth of thought. Ditto for some busybody collecting her paycheck for “working” for some zoning board or what have you.
      There is nothing wrong with one vote per household, cast by the household’s natural head, the man. Extending the vote to more than one (women and dependent children), is only done in order to sow discord within households, weakening their role as the atomic building block of society. Thereby breaking them down, for the benefit of those who prefer their competitors for authority be weakened.

      1. Fake work to make fake money. The system is showing tremendous strain into it’s old age.

    4. I think that if a woman wants to get on welfare, she should have to take a birth control shot first. If you can’t afford the children you do have, as evidenced by taking taxpayer dollars to support them, you shouldn’t be allowed to bring more into the world. Sound fascist? Perhaps. But watch how quickly the nuclear family becomes the norm again.

      1. If only that were the case. Maybe this could have been prevented.
        “I got 15 kids and someones needs to pay. Someone needs to be held accountable.”

      2. So he impregnates her, its not rape. He then buggers off. She wanted a family. she is left with child. Its hard for me to understand the ideas here when they dont complete a thought. This site in general is offensive to me, but I dont judge, I just dont understand how the flaws in the system are not addressed.

        2. ” This site in general is offensive to me, but I dont judge, ”
          This sentence: a judgement followed by a denial of judgement.
          Just LOL

        3. This “buggers off” problem used to be treated with a goodly dose of whipping post and the pill…ory.

        4. This “buggers off” problem used to be treated with a goodly dose of whipping post and the pill…ory. Unfortunately, “caring” upper class women voted the whipping post out. Too “cruel,” they said. Not as cruel as letting irresponsible men abandon their families.

      3. I think we should also neuter all the men with low IQs. NOT. I am not an Authoritarian; I am a Libertarian.

        2. See, you are a perfect example on why women should stay away from politics and not be allowed to vote.

    5. As somebody once said, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. It was an imperfect system 100 years ago, but it’s sheer madness that we have expanded the franchise to include professional moochers.
      Imagine if we ran our households along the same lines – give the children a vote on how Daddy’s pay is spent every month. After a couple of months of all the money being blown on sweeties and video games, the whole family would be homeless.

      1. Oh that’s already happening…. you can’t scold a child any more and little Johnny can complain to the school teachers and you’ll be up to your neck in social workers and psychological evaluations.
        Plus the loss of the title of ‘man of the house’ means that wifey can throw a hissy fit on behalf of the kids because you didn’t unload a quick grand on plastic toys for easter…. never mind Christmas, Birthdays, Mother’s Day, Valentines day etc. etc. she’ll have your balls if you forget those.

        3. That problem is easily solved Ray. If little princess daughter pulls the “Well, I’ll just call the police on you” introduce her to a Bing search on these keywords “Foster Home, Rape, Female”. She’ll be shocked into fear and silence in no time.

        4. I am with you. No children, just a crazy controlling husband that I stayed with for a year. Nope. Serves me right for marrying a former drug dealer…

        5. I can’t believe what you just said. Now, I have a daughter, and boy, I’ve got to tell you, if your little girl is doing anything like threatening to call the police on you, you’ve raised her wrong. I can only assume through your language and tone that you don’t have a daughter, because if you did, you would know that a little girl is a thing to be loved and protected and she will in turn love you without fail. You’re fucked in the head if you really think shocking a little girl into absolute fear is necessary. You must protect her from the evil influences of this world, not become an evil influence yourself.

        6. Women are breeders…nothing more. They contribute NOTHING to society except misery. Trust me, when they perfect the sexbots, women will be forced to beg for scraps of food in the street because they will no longer have ANY value.

        7. Oh grow the fuck up. If my daughter EVER threatened to call the law on me, I would tell her to go ahead and call an ambulance while she’s at it. It is YOUR daughter that will grow up and be a complete cunt to some guy….little princess my ass!

        8. Ever consider that the pubic skule may have raised her wrong? The Progressive-controlled government and government controlled schools have as an agenda the overthrow of what they falsely label the “patriarchy” and the destruction of the family, replacing respect for and obedience to parents with loyalty to Uncle Sugar (USA).

        10. Last time I looked, women were the cause of all trouble in the world: the next generation. Men’s biological role takes 20 seconds to a few minutes. Women’s takes 9 months plus years.

        11. Last time I looked, women were the cause of all trouble in the world: the next generation. Men’s biological role takes 20 seconds to a few minutes. Women’s takes 9 months plus years.

        12. Much of the raising of daughters is done by Liberal Socialist (Hillary says the new term for “Liberal” is “Progressive”) Progressive Feminist indoctrinators (“teachers”) in the socialist schools. Fathers, do you know what your daughter(s) (and sons) are being taught?
          Leave your beer in the fridge, turn the football game off for a while and pay attention.

    7. Let me offer some token liberal arguments:
      But that’s mean!
      What about poor people?
      Everyone has equal value!

      1. Proper responses:
        “So?”
        “Private charity”
        “No, they don’t. Next”

    8. This is interresting subject..so should a society do nothing to help people who have no job. Perhaps because they got unjustly laid off, or there is a crisis or whatever. Would a “no security net” society not hand unlimited power to employers because everyone would be sucking their nuts in fear of being fired ?
      I’m not for or against but I’ve been giving pros and cons some thoughts lately..I dont think this is a question easily answered.

      2. “Society” used to voluntarily provide welfare in the form of what was once wistfully called “private charity”. And it worked wonders. The biggest pushers of government welfare back in the 1930’s forward were not saying that private charity was not functioning, rather they were scolding it for providing charity in a means tested way and by requiring the recipients to do more than sit around drinking liquor.

      3. Much of what puts people in the desperation to “suck the nuts of employers” is the welfare state taking away their income and potential savings on one side so they can’t build up any rainy day funds and raising the costs of essentials such as food, clothing, and especially housing on the other to make any savings worthless.
        The employers aren’t the ones doing the exploiting. It’s the women voting to take all the wealth of the men.
        Your security net system only works if the society keeps itself racially, culturally, linguistically, and religiously homogeneous while being high trust.
        Otherwise, two things happen:
        1) one side will form to use its political power to beggar the other side and will become corrupt, for example lying about illness to collect benefits. This is what the Orthodox Serbs did to the Catholic Croatians and non-Serbo-Croatian speaking Slovenians causing Yugoslavia to implode. Admittedly, there was massive animosity simmering between all the different groups in Yugoslavia going back centuries, but Yugoslavia being bankrupted by Serbian economic welfare policies – which being focused on mass employment at subsidized factories were pretty benign by the standards of most welfare states – was the match that set off the pool of gasoline of hate.
        2) men will lose the incentive to work since unless they are genetically gifted w/extraordinary height, looks, and social intelligence, they won’t be able to have children since they won’t be able to pay for them or even get the resources to learn game. See the declining birth rate across the West.
        I’m guessing from your name that you are Danish, and are used to living in such a society that due to being extremely homogeneous and high trust, has the luxury of having such a safety net.
        There are 2 quotes attributed to Milton Friedman that I find very useful to explain why you can do that others can’t
        1) “You can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both”
        2) *in response to a Scandinavian angrily telling him ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty!’ *
        – “That’s funny, because in America, among Scandinavians, we don’t have any poverty either.”

        1. There are plenty of poor people here in Denmark. What is happening now is that we still pay enormous amounts of tax but we get less and less for it. We are not able to save up for a raining day, as you say, and when the raining day comes, less and less help is available.
          Denmark 40-50 years ago was just picture perfect. Stability, welfare, everything. Then EU took over, immigrants arrived in hordes. Now it’s all ruined.

        2. That’s not what Denmark’s many defenders, of which the American Left is a very powerful one, say. They claim that Denmark and Sweden (it’s unlikely in most cases that they can really distinguish the two) are the model countries free of poverty, bigotry, and suffering which we should use all our efforts and wealth to become. You would not believe the delusions that they have of Scandinavia, even when you confront them with the facts. The fantasy is just too seductive. For women, it’s the perfect “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux” society, in which they can be impregnated by tall good looking Danish men and force the short ugly ones to pay for the kids w/o even having to sleep with them. For non-asian minorities, it’s the ultimate way to sucker whites and asians to pay for their destructive cultures. For White Knights and Manginas, it provides a desperate hope of being able to bang Blond Blue Eyed Scandinavian women if they just are nice enough.
          All that praise often goes to Scandinavians’ heads. They act like spoiled entitlement princesses, especially when abroad. I remember back in the 90s many Danes pretending to get the vapors when a Danish woman got in trouble for leaving her child in a pram outside a New York restaurant, when any damn idiot with an ounce of common sense knows how dangerous that is and why. Glad to see that you are not one of them.
          You are right that joining the EU and allowing Muslim immigrants was an extremely stupid thing for Denmark to do, especially if they wanted a welfare state.

        3. Thats the thing socialism always requires nationalism or it will collapse. The problem with surface compassion is that its incompassionate.

    9. a couple of days ago, the budget was announced in my country. you should have heard the cries from the welfare douchebags. the government has elected to cut much of its spending on some basket case welfare. now, we are getting articles in the media on how people will now turn to crime????. what a load of $hit. its been the middle class white single male that has been paying for slags to breed and dicks with depression (for 10 plus years to stay) on disability pensions. anyone what pays NO tax should not have the right to vote in any election. this is a good government budget, its only the one’s wanting something for nothing, that are whinging….

      1. They had rights to property (real estate) much as minors do today: held in trust and managed by the trustee. While unmarried they were under the protection (both from others and from their own foolishness) of their fathers, or in their place the male head of household, and once married, their husbands.

    11. I would go a lot farther than that. Any person who was paid by the government, either directly or indirectly, would not vote. Civil servants, employees of defense contractors, university employees. If a significant portion of your salary comes from taxes you don’t get to vote. Second, a return to serfdom. Taxes capped at 25% of income. No other taxes or fees allowed, suggesting any change that would increase taxes over this amount would be considered treason, reducing taxes would be allowed. No government deficits. If a civil servant was found campaigning they would automatically be fired and barred from the civil service for life. Want to be involved in government do something productive. Man I can rant on but that is a good start.

  14. This is my new favorite article on RoK, if not just for the subject matter. I 100% agree that Western society should revoke women’s suffrage. Most women don’t care at all for politics (it’s a panty-drier and an “ew” topic for most) but those that do are usually either fashionably or destructively liberal. Women tend to only vote for liberalism, socialism, and more of the same policies that are currently bankrupting the US and the West.

    3. A female’s political purview is chained to her emotions. That’s why liberalism attracts women. Compassion, equality, tolerance, and every worthless liberal value is linked to feelings. Greatness and superiority are denigrated because it’s “mean and unfair”.

  15. to campaign for any group to lose voting rights doesn’t seem pragmatic to me. What can work is to demonstrate the evils that have arisen consequent to female suffrage, which the author does very well. Any suggestion that voting rights should be taken away will immediate lose legitimacy as the idea of democracy is far more deeply rooted in society than its actual effective practice, i.e. its effective proponents happily deny people the effective influence on government they’re supposed to have all the time – corporatism works on that basis for example, as do most lobby groups. Successful movements tend to try co-opt the institutions and existing infrastructure of the society they are in, and this doesn’t require a formal platform saying for example ‘billionaires’ should have more influence than ‘millionaires’
    Having said that a lot of what underpins modern democracy (with all its corruptions) are so-called ‘consensus values’ that never get questioned, but should be questioned.. There is a sense in which arguments which violate such’consensus values’ can serve to provide a wake-up call.

    1. You forget that it’s all about marketing. A clever marketing campaign will get women to support repealing the 20th amendment in very short order.
      It was clever marketing that got them to believe that murdering their own unborn children was a “choice”, after all.

      1. it will have to be very clever indeed. I worry a bit about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think there’s a growing groundswell of hatred for what feminism and its support structures are doing to civilization, and one of he reasons for that its profound abuse of democractic and egalitarian principles. Sure I think those principles need to be seriously questioned, but when one automatically rejects those principles, rather than taking to task those who are abusing them, then there are certain missed opportunities.
        Losing women their right to vote probably isn’t going to work any time soon, and campaigning for it when its not likely to be effective, may provide easy ammunition for those who would shoot down real arguments

        1. Whenever someone screeches at me that “voting rights are HUMAN rights”, I laugh and ask them if they think 5 year olds should be allowed to vote. Or people living in Saudi Arabia getting absentee ballots of vote in American elections. etc.
          Heck, I think voting rights should be curtailed beyond women: No government employees (conflict of interest) or those living off of welfare or other government benefits. American Income Taxpayers only. If you have a net income tax liability, then you get to vote. Heck, make that apply to women as well. Why not?
          In the end, I think that most working women on average are far more right wing/conservative/pro-male than the average douchebag white male government employee.

        2. Certainly, the women paying significant income taxes understand the game quite well. I don’t know any women in the private sector who earn a lot who don’t have the same complaints about taxes that men do.

        3. Ironically, we seem to be approaching the problem from an avenue far more egalitarian and equal than the feminists!
          There are women who truly want equality with men not as some kind of BS political statement, but due to personal lifestyle. They have the talent and drive to be doctors, scientists, businesswomen and earn their keep. They are a net contribution to society. The problem with feminism is that it sought to treat ALL women as deserving of this credit even as none of us would propose that ALL men should be treated as equals to Einstein or Steve Jobs. Men are told, by feminists and by us, that if you can’t stop playing video games and move out of your parents’ basement, then you shouldn’t be able to have a high paying job and have kids. Just live out your life and die. Nothing unjust about that.
          Ironically, the women who earn their way are almost as hindered by the worthless man-hating feminists seeking handouts as we are. So sure, in a sense, we are on a better egalitarian path. Let’s choose a lifestyle based voting entitlement scheme:
          No felons (although those who get pardons should be allowed but they should earn it by full restitution.)
          No foreigners/illegals.
          Nobody living off of the state.
          Make it like a drivers’ license. My wife passed the citizenship test and I think that’s a good start. Every 10 years, you have to take a test to prove you know the difference between the senate and congress, why the state issues driver’s licenses and not the feds, and what country shares a border with Washington state.
          This is a populist measure I think a lot of people would back. In the end, men would dominate and women who want to be housewives (which is most of them really) could do so without guilt and men wouldn’t have to apologize to the feminists for giving women the protection and support women crave.

        4. I like Captain Capitalism’s idea as well. If you can’t name the major percentages of the state/federal budget, you should not be allowed to vote. i.e., if you don’t know what we’re spending the majority of our public dollars on, you get no say in how they should be spent in the future.
          What’s sad is, we would be making voting for representatives harder than the votes those same representatives make. After all, they have to “pass the bill” to “find out what’s in it.”

    2. Yes. I’m not really able (or to be fair, trying) to lay out a pragmatic plan for rescuing civilisation in a 1500 word article. Think of it more as a high level discussion piece on one of the main reasons why our society has gone into a tailspin.

      1. its all part of holding those fragrant ladies accountable for the bucket of vomit they’ve given us in the name of progress

  16. Women get the vote. Then they want to murder their children legally. Then they want “equal pay” without any basis on merit. Then they want to lock up men because they didn’t get out of the way of their abusive wives when they were swinging their fists at them.
    The sad part is, the Constitution never prohibited women from voting in the first place. It was a state-level issue that was made a national issue by the progressives like Woodrow Wilson. In fact, there already were a few states that allowed women to vote. Of course, you’ll never hear that in feminist-run schools and colleges.

    1. Technically, the 14th amendment was an equal rights amendment:
      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
      jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
      state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
      shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
      States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
      property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
      jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
      Much like when feminists say that they want “equality”, it’s highly conditional with lots of exceptions just as the 14th amendment had. States no longer could prohibit African Americans from voting, but they could prohibit women. Why the difference? BECAUSE, that’s why.
      Same thing with the proposed ERA. It would have meant lots of goodies for women in the name of equality while looking the other way at women getting out of the draft, continued alimony, VAWA style laws to protect women, etc.

      1. The EPC was not an equal rights amendment. In the legislative history, the term equal protection did not contemplate an embrace of French Revolution style egalitarianism. No more than due process could be thought to be substantive as well as procedural.

      2. Women only get out of the draft because if we all die there, there is no more nation, because, well, women are slower at the mating process than men are… If you want a nation to survive, it’s women must survive. 10 men can repopulate a nation full of women… but 10 women cannot repopulate a nation for of men…

        1. One of the arguments I have often heard from feminists (not to say you are one) but I chuckle is that women and men are equal except that women make babies hence the women are more valuable.
          Nothing, repeat, NOTHING is more WORTHLESS than a baby. I don’t mean that in a moral sense but rather from a strictly economic/practical one in the context of your argument. During wartime, the last thing society needs are babies to take care of. Babies are better for peacetime, but during war they are a total burden. When the Russians invaded Germany at the end of WWII and raped the women, all those liebensraum babies did nothing to stop it from happening.
          In the distant past with agrarian societies, babies were needed to produce low skilled workers to farm the fields. Something like 10 people per acre were needed to produce food for 15 people or something like that. Soldiers were cannon fodder. As society evolved to a more highly skilled workforce and military, fewer people were needed or even desirable. Even worse, the needs of these people for limited natural resources (oil, minerals) actually caused wars (Iraq for oil, example)
          The myth that more people are needed even when they are not has led to declining living standards in the west even as the overpopulated third world has flooded the west with refugees from their miserable overcrowded conditions. 6 billion people is great, how about 20? Want to live off a bag of rice a day? In the present time, enjoy paying for a home over 40 years when my father paid off his in 20.

        2. People are needed to continue a nation’s culture. The nation will die off. It isn’t the smartest way of playing chess. The nations demand nation loyalty in order to survive. War is here, and for as long as there is ignorant people attempting to control others, war will always be here. We as a nation, must be prepared to defend our culture, our christian rooted belief of liberty and equality. Justice for ALL. Liberty and equality are opposites; versus each other. In the attempt to balance, there will be errors, but the pursuit of happiness for all of us doesn’t stop there. We as human beings will continue to make mistakes and learn from them, and one day, all natural fallibility will be mitigated and weeded out of our laws. But we cannot survive without law, or we will enter into another dark ages.
          That being said, it is right to respect our male warriors, but we cannot all help, as our responsibility to the nation is far different. We are here to support you on that, work as a team, not someone who is to be controlled because we are the physically weaker sex.

        3. A baby will one day support you when you cant walk upstairs or leave your house.

        4. I never suggested anarchy was a solution. Let’s consider your cite “justice for all” and put it into context with the situation we’re in which is that our western society made a mistake at some point where justice and protecting the weak became warped into lauding weakness ahead of the strong. Welfare mothers are granted the strongest protections of our society while working men (and women for that matter) are regarded as “privileged” and taxed mercilessly. When weakness becomes a merit, it’s unsurprising that a society appears suicidal since death is the ultimate weakness.
          Just to show this isn’t all about men, we should respect “strong” women who make sensible decisions in life, who use their fertility wisely, and leverage their feminine virtues into a strength. One crime of feminism has been to make young women who go about expeditiously to find a reliable husband are losers. Yet at the same time, men who do not have their eye on making themselves into good mates for women (good job) and seek out women (game) are not given any respect by society (which is appropriate.) Men are told that life isn’t one big playtime, but women are given this message to their, and society’s detriment. Do you agree?
          Finally, before we agree too much, I want to address the notion of men controlling women. Women seem to like it that way. This is the lesson of the post feminist world. If women get a high paying job and their husband doesn’t, chances are she’ll lose respect for him. Women “shit test” men all the time and often do amazingly irresponsible things. If women seemed capable of handling equality, and dealing with power in a responsible fashion, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This doesn’t apply to all women, of course yet feminism is dedicated to making all women the same as “equals” to men which, ironically, denies women their natural choice.
          Critical thinking is best practiced by putting oneself up in front of a board and letting others take pot shots at you. It’s not pleasant, but it is in some ways a natural process. People often go to great lengths to avoid the natural process of growing out of bad ideas and trends.

        5. “10 men can repopulate a nation full of women… but 10 women cannot repopulate a nation full of men”
          this is fantasy situation and dont happens in real life. remove men from society and women will also die out very quickly

        6. “Critical Thinking is a discipline that must constantly be practiced and never comes naturally.”
          One would think that you would practice what you preach. Liberty and equality are not christian ideals whatsoever. Have you even read the bible? In the new testament it says if you are someones slave not to violently take your freedom but to be a good slave to your master and exemplify christian virtues.
          Liberty and equality are most readily seen as ideals supported by the freemason inspired french revolution as a way to disinherit the aristocracy from their position. It’s redistribution of wealth just like all revolutions and to equate that with christianity makes you an idiot of the highest order.
          How many tatoos do you have? I’m sure you dont know that is forbidden by biblical law and you are just as much a pagan as a satan worshipping anton levey.

        7. Yes I have, and Freemasonry was once christian… You must be familiar with Solomon’s temple design right? The direction of the son must enter into, and the direction that the son must leave was reversed over time on their tracing boards. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist like you are though.

        8. I don’t see what you see regarding welfare… I grew up poor, and worked my ass off, and I knew both men and women abusing the system… I also knew people who needed the help legitimately. I know people who slaved working 60+ hours a week to survive. I have smelled men and women who labored in the 120 degree weather of the mojave desert.
          Women do not like it that way… Don’t you see how they are rising up in the nations they are still oppressed. Why Korea made a woman president? Why they try to make their forced marriages known. Why women hate not being able to drive in Saudi Arabia?
          There are some women that actually like not working, some that actually find a good man who let her work sometimes and still helps her live, and some that don’t like relying on others to survive. Me, I am antisocial and don’t even desire to keep friends, let alone a man… Does that mean I have to be forced into a behavior that I don’t like because others do like it that way? Why can’t it be to each their own?

        9. Isn’t it the politicians that send men to war? You think there aren’t male politicians who didn’t go?

    2. The problem is that nature is NOT egalitarian. It doesn’t sound “nice” but reality never is.

      1. You fuck with nature, it fucks you right back. Women were never designed to be in control or lead. They were designed to follow men. Nature will correct this over time, with lots of bloodshed.

        1. Yup. Nature always tries to maintain a balance. That’s why I don’t think it’s impossible (unlike some people) that things could wildly swing back the other direction. History NEVER ends. Many think we have reached “the end of history”. But like the foolish neocon Francis Fukuyama, history proved him dead wrong. If there’s one thing in life that is INEVITABLE it’s change. Also, history has not been linear. It’s ebbed and flowed. Back and forth.
          Nature abhors imbalance. The pendulum WILL eventually swing back. I’ve never known a pendulum to continue to swing only one direction. That’s impossible.

        2. I completely agree, especially with your second paragraph. Nature will always seek, and attain balance. However, as history has clearly shown, when the pendulum swings back, there is always massive violence.
          There is one major caveat to that though. The West is headed towards a massive high tech surveillance dictatorship that is only possible through modern technology. Such a form of Gov’t would have been impossible at any time in past history. Will this new form of Gov’t head off any attempt at a natural re-balancing of gender roles? It’s very possible.
          That being said, technology is very easy to disrupt and destroy. Technology tends to be easily undermined with low tech solutions.

        3. It may delay it for awhile but even technology cannot overcome the absolute might of nature. It’s like trying to stop a hurricane or tornado. It’s not going to happen

        4. eventually it will run out of money…. didn’t you read the thesis of Wiki Leaks founder Assange ?
          His concept is that the more secrecy a regime has, the more inefficient it becomes…. It’s the same on a computer… if everything you do has to be super mega bit encrypted, it takes for ever to open one document.
          So the idea of Wikileaks was to plant a virus into the Government and make it more and more secretive, different departments close off to each other and things grind to a halt.
          They will try and they might succeed…. for a period of time….. but to be honest, the people are more touchy than you think and there will be insurrection pretty quickly.
          Our society is very complex. It’s not a question of a King and his castle any more…. a few good hackers could shut the lights off in every major city.

        5. The collaspe of the the US may very well mimick the collapse of the Soviet Union in many important ways.
          There will be no coup like the Soviet Union, but it may be bloodless, at least initially. The super rich elites will gobble up everything in sight( just like Soviet elites). The population will suffer badly, but in silence. The press will not cover any of it beyond the initial fall.
          Then again, the Russian people didn’t own guns. Major game changer there for the elites to deal with.

        6. Follow them where; to the pit of despair? Off the Bridge? Nah, I follow only the Lord my God. Humanity is lost and has no idea what it’s doing.

        7. And trust me, I will be VIOLENT before you even try to take my rights. Do you know the difference between parsley and fool’s parsley?

        8. Take your rights? Like the “right” to have a say in the fate of the fruits of others’ labor? Delusional

        9. Ok, so now your pushin a deluded belief from one of your perceptions of an incident with others on me like I did something when I did not? Sometimes I wonder if it was a good idea to close down the mental hospitals.

        12. Great post Sammy. I’ve wondered myself if a Big Brother World will trump nature’s corrective process. It could happen, at least for who knows how long. If your last paragraph comes true then all bets are off. What a time that will be. We’ll come to know the meaning of anarchy.

  17. Giving a hormonal driven animal (women) the right to vote is the same as giving a loaded rifle to a monkey. Big fuckin’ mistake.

    1. I see women as being primarily driven by fear. Their first fear is of death. Their next fear is of age. Then their next fear is of pain and suffering. Then they fear that they’ll have regrets (not only is it the regrets themselves, but the annoying fear of having regrets, that is unique with women.)
      The fear of death is always there for them, every day they see another notch carved on the wall. This is a great source of their constant anxiety and it comes in many forms. They know that with each passing day they’ve missed something. They have an ambiguous regret that cannot be named. Something is wrong, but they can’t put their finger on it. Something must be done, and soon, but they’re not sure. Men don’t have this fear as bad. They’re much more likely to behave as if they’re going to live forever, whether out of ignorance or rebelliousness.
      Along with death they fear aging, partially because it brings them closer to death. Also, they lose their youthful vigor and beauty, if they had any. Many are their attempts to thwart aging, much cash is spent and much time is wasted in front of a mirror.
      They then fear pain and suffering. They see a rapist on every corner. They know that at any moment any man can jump out and slaughter them and the children. They know in their heart of hearts they are defenseless and weak, blown about by a cruel Nature.
      All of this fear leads to constant anxiety and an inability to experience contentment. There is always something else out of place, nagging at their little brains. There is a tendency to have regrets about everything and always wonder what things would have been like had they only… XYZ. When they’re given the vote they act on these primary motivations. They want to live forever. They want to be able to be whatever they wanna be and they want it right now. Mom, CEO, priest, organic farmer, etc. They need security because freedom and liberty is very dangerous for them. They can be slaughtered at any minute. Women have never had to actually work for any of these things in the past. So they don’t want to work for it now. They want it they way security always came to them, from a man, like magic. They don’t know how it all works, but they know it comes from them men with power, and that’s who they have to align themselves with.

      2. brilliant… I have an article coming on this soon…..
        what’s more is that the fear is projected onto other people…. watch Pink Floyd The Wall… you will see what I mean….

      3. Bravo, you provided your PERCEPTION of what you think women think… Have you really been in a woman’s head? No? Then shut the fuck up because this is a load of horse shit.

    2. BIG FUCKIN MSTKE DOOD! who r thse shtheads gving other humans equal rights?!!? bbbbiiiiiiigggg fuckin mistake man

      1. Equal rights: life, liberty, property. Voting is a privilege for those competent to use it.

    3. I see people are sticking their heads up their own asses in order to asses reality.

  18. Very well put sir. This should be carved into a block of marble and dropped from space through the ceiling of every capital in the Western world.

    1. Won’t somebody think of the poor squashed politicians? No? I’m fine with that.

  19. On a side note the two ‘Independent patriarchy destroyers’ on the front cover here are part of a group called FEMEN here’s a nice video of them getting their asses handed to them by the French while they try to interrupt a traditional marriage protest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MHMdYw041U

  20. I approve of & agree with 91% of what is posted on RoK, but this article is juvenile and an embarrassment. Leaving aside the many historical facts McMahon simplifies and interprets wrongly, the disenfranchisement of women is NEVER going to happen. Why waste time/space calling for it? Only a Beta would write this article.

    1. When the 18th Amendment was ratified, there were a lot of people who said that it would never be repealed.

    2. Never say never.
      Heck, as others have pointed out, the collapse of western civilization as we know it is inevitable with Sharia law to be implemented in France and Sweden in about a century or so. If we, as men, don’t take away the women’s vote…
      someone else will.

    3. ” the disenfranchisement of women is NEVER going to happen.”
      Yet another person who thinks it’s “the end of history”. There is NO such thing. Of course it will change. History ebbs and flows it isn’t linear and change is INEVITABLE. It just doesn’t APPEAR that way right now.

      1. If this happens in America, in our lifetimes (it won’t), feel free to return to this page and post an even smugger “I told you so” comment. I wish to be constructive & civil here, but I’m no Fukuyama fan.
        In the hours since first commenting I realized how ignorant/naïve we all are to be debating this point since the act of voting in 2014 changes nothing. The 2 major parties are indistinguishable and elected officials do whatever like they with impunity. The country has bigger problems than bitching about women.

        1. “The country has bigger problems than bitching about women.”
          It’s not about bitching about women, it’s about exploring the reasons for how we got to this place and what needs to be done for change. Will we see women losing the vote in our lifetime? I doubt it but the present paradigm WILL change. It’s only a question of when.
          I would agree that the 19th Amendment is not nearly the only problem, but it is a problem. It’s one section of a larger picture and should be discussed.

    4. Hey, you’re talking bout me!
      Juvenile and an embarrassment? I’ve been called worse.
      It’s not meant to be a dissertation for a masters degree in history, so yes it is simplified.
      If I’m wrong on any point of fact, I’d love to hear about what.
      “the disenfranchisement of women is NEVER going to happen. Why waste time/space calling for it?”
      This is like saying “we’re never going to cure cancer, you guys! So let’s stop trying!” Correcting the mistake that was extending the franchise to women is a lot easier than curing cancer. Sure it can be done.
      “Only a Beta would write this article”
      Well, that’s me told. Except now that I think of it, passive aggressive suggestions that a man whose argument you disagree with must be a beta seems like pretty beta-ish behaviour to me. But I also don’t spend any time worrying about whether I or anybody I know is a beta, so what do I know?
      Anyway, apart from the above, I take it you liked the article?

  21. Agreed, women voting is highly destructive because they just vote themselves other people’s money. Unmarried women are the worst at this because they don’t have their own provider. The decline of marriage is going to make women vote increasingly liberal until they bankrupt their countries.
    The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb is a fantastic, short read: http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf (with a summary on the last page)
    It describes how all great empires follow a similar pattern. They start with lots of masculine virtue, and go through stages of conquest and commerce to reach affluence. But once the empire is hugely prosperous its citizens no longer need great virtue.
    Affluence leads to an age of intellect where universities pop up everywhere, and this is followed by decadence: the pursuit of materialism, hedonism, the Welfare state, etc. This lack of virtue and decadence leads to a decline, and eventually the empire is taken over by a more patriarchal, masculine culture.
    As Heartiste said, prosperity is the problem. It ensures people don’t need to develop virtue, while degeneracy and decadence can develop – like feminism, socialism and acceptance of unnatural things like LGBT.
    Unfortunately for the liberal freakshows, their degeneracy is leading to the collapse of the West. They are too short-sighted / stupid to realize they are biting the hand that feeds them, but eventually the Gods of the Copybook Headings (i.e. common sense) will return.
    The West is heading for a severe backlash against this nonsense: economic collapse / revolution / war, which will cull the liberals and their deviance and degeneracy. After lots of blood, sweat and tears, the natural order – Patriarchy, masculine virtue and feminine submission – will make a come back.

    1. Your assessment seems accurate. It’s what I would predict as well. History is littered with examples of societies growing so powerful and large, that they eventually fall apart under their own weight. This type of widespread, immoral behavior that we currently see everywhere is common during an empire’s decline phase. The masses of liberal freaks are clearly the weakest, so they will naturally be the first to die when the shit all goes down. But sadly, many good people will also perish. History is a bitch.

    2. “It ensures people don’t need to develop virtue, while degeneracy and decadence can develop – like feminism, socialism and acceptance of unnatural things like LGBT.”
      What strikes me is that they don’t seem to know when (or how) to stop. Most people don’t have anything against gays, for example. So what do the activists do? Keep pushing and pushing. “Oh, you’re tolerant of gays now are you? Well, next you’d better tolerate schizophrenic trannies with beards becoming scout leaders and sleeping in tents with your children, you bigots!”. And then they wonder why people form a poor opinion of the LGBT crowd.
      The same goes for the feminists and check-your-privilegers in general. It’s like termites, they can’t or won’t stop eating away at whatever is in their path. They’ll eat until either the whole edifice of society collapses around them, or they’re stopped.
      You can only push people so far before even the most placid of them shove back.

      1. Yeah – If women are equal then why do they need activists to back them up ? If Gays are accepted in society, why do they need constant activism ?
        South Park episode with NAMBLA is hilarious, where the Man Love Boy pedophiles are demanding equal rights.

        1. maybe we should have put a stop to the degeneracy before it even started by forbidding it even at homosexuality. I don’t know, but it seems the civilizations where completely intolerant men still rule with an iron fist, like the middle east, don’t have degeneracy problems

    3. Cue China….. Those cats might have their issues, but they know how to do a days work, they know how to make women useful and they get shit done – period.

    5. “The West is heading for a severe backlash against this nonsense: economic collapse / revolution / war, which will cull the liberals and their deviance and degeneracy. After lots of blood, sweat and tears, the natural order – Patriarchy, masculine virtue and feminine submission – will make a come back.”
      Personally I cant wait to blood eagle some fuckin degenerates.

    1. I just said a similar thing. I also added (like many) that only income tax earners who don’t get income from the state should be allowed to vote. Not the “47%” as Romney called them. I would even say government contractors shouldn’t be allowed to vote either. NONE OF THEM. They already have enough power getting money from the public.

      1. I don’t have a problem allowing any active military member who have served in a combat zone the right to vote despite them drawing a paycheck.

        1. Neither do I, personally of course, but the problem with exceptions is that it lets the Wise Latinas of the world then play games with adding more.
          Let’s try this: service and sacrifice in the military is just that. That could including losing the right to vote for that time period. But then it’s up to the rest of society to find other ways to compensate them with respect and proper healthcare for their injuries.
          I know a lot of vets who don’t feel that society respects their sacrifice enough. In many cases, they have experienced discrimination in which case I ask myself: Should young men volunteer to fight in the military anymore?

      2. I think citizenship test should be required for all levels of voting, municipal up to federal. Being a contributor to the federal taxes, which is less than half of Americans, should be voting in federal elections.

  23. As far as I agree with the author’s stand on women’s right to vote I don’t agree with basis premises that the british were successful because of solid patriarchal society. The american empire NOW behaves and employs the same tactics as the british empire – invades and steals the resources from other people. This in fact is a feminine trait – parasitical behaviour.
    And let’s face it, the genie is out of the bottle. How are we going to revert back the laws? The resistance will be enormous.
    The only way you can beat feminism is by exploiting it.

    1. I’m not blind to the British Empire’s faults or indeed its crimes, but I’m reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian “what have the Romans ever done for us?”

      1. They built aqueducts and brought trade and when the east got tired of financially supporting the west, the dark ages began.

    2. So the Vikings were feminine too? They had a very bad parasitical behavior when they progress the dark ages in their favor.

  24. i’ve been reading ROK since the beginning. this is my first comment – this article is awesome, thank you sir

    1. This was good. My all time favorites are “Can Society Afford the Educated Woman?” and “American Men are the Prisoners of Women”.

  25. all the articles on RoK are great and i love reading them but spreading and sharing this information is impossible because everyone in my life is blind and has been indoctrinated into the system.

    1. Start with low carb high fat being a decent diet. Once people experience it and realize it works they start to question why the government, despite the evidence to the contrary, keeps pushing the opposite.

    2. Aye, what willbest said. High protein/low carb, combined with working out, really boosts testosterone. Once you get a kick of high T in your shorts things like feminism start looking more and more foolish even on their face. I’ve yet to meet a truly feminist bodybuilder.

      1. i already do work out did my comment make you infer otherwise? also everyone deep down no matter who they are already knows that feminism is an utter waste of time and is one of the worst things for a nation.

    3. Who cares. Do it anyway. Plant the seed in the heads of some. I lost a few “friends” posting this, but so it goes.

  26. The author has a cat. And is married. And lives on the countryside.
    Why the fuck are you being so right when whatever little that I know about you makes me feel you should be wrong?

    2. That gives me an idea for an article “Why Cats Are Man’s Best Friend”

  27. I seriously wonder if this post on ROK could be interpreted as a violation of VAWA. I guess we’ll find out.

    1. I had to look up what VAWA is. The Violence Against Women Act?
      I would never be violent against women, and if any lady says otherwise, she deserves a spanking.

        1. if we were still animals on the savannah, we wouldnt deal with any of this shit. animals only recognize the true law, that of violence. the male silverback keeps its females in line through violence. the male lion does the same. I dont mean we should go around beating women up like a gorilla, but there are times when it’s our duty to remind them of reality

    2. Fuck the VAWA. Seriously, fuck it straight to hell. Who cares if anything anybody says is in violation of that lawless law?

  28. The author briefly alludes to universities here, and with the little he does say he’s absolutely correct. There is literally no more fucking debate on the issues that are actually legally relevant anymore as far as the everyday person is concerned. Studying law has opened my eyes quite a bit as to the nature of indoctrination. For example students are bombarded with this parasitic issue of feminism whenever possible and when debate is concerned its usually between two chicks on how badly they’ve been fucked over by the patriarchy (although they’re comfortably middle class and haven’t faced a days worth of ‘oppression’ in their paid for lives) and how to receive more government help with affirmative action programs.
    I can still remember the poor bloke who accepted to be on the other side of the equal pay debate, opposed with 2 chicks and a skinny jean wearing faggot thinking he might be able to suck some titties if he valiantly fought for the honor of these two bulldykes. The bulldykes raved on as usual about the conspiracy that is the patriarchy and age old discrimination blah blah fucking blah not a word of fact needless to say. As was expected as soon as the guy opened his mouth and started talking about the economic and family/biological reasons as to why women are and should be paid a fraction less then man the same old shit hit the fan i.e from the 150 odd crowd “misogynist”, “entitled bastard” “End to the patriarchy”. So much for free debate and expression of opinions at universities although I’m thankful it isn’t as bad here as it is in Canada,

    1. Which is why we can not win this battle face on with a debate. The indoctrination runs deep. Debating with women is pointless, they’ve got much bigger mouths and much smaller brains.
      “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
      ― George Carlin

      1. Nicely said its weird with these people though, something inherently psychological. Scientists who hold beliefs for decades once proven wrong gracefully accept that they were wrong (although after rigorous debate) and acquiesce to the new solution or theory etc. With feminists though no matter the amount of debating, or scientific facts that you put in front of them their indoctrination is so hardcore they just cant accept the truth, this is the society we live in today.

        1. feelings rarely relate directly to facts. Feelings validate conclusions and are therefore feminist truths (and much of leftist ideology) is unlike scientific knowledge, unfalsifiable, even if can be shown to be internally incoherent
          Roger Scruton is a great critic of the indoctrinating trend in modern universities, particularly in arguing that indoctrination frequently involves ‘foregone conclusions’ that encourage students to learn what they’re supposed to learn, rather than critique what they are being told
          http://www.fortfreedom.org/l16.htm

        2. For those who may be interested and despair at the state of our universities, and their mobilisation in the service of a movement that despises any kind of truth, objectivity or even integrity in the pursuit of academic knowledge, christina Hoff Sommers (who stole feminism) provides a very good summary of Scruton’s analysis of what constitutes indoctrination (compared to real education) and why feminism epitomises indoctrination:
          “The claim that all teaching is a form of indoctrination, usually in the service of those who are politically dominant, helps to justify the pedagogy of the feminist classroom. Feminist academics often say that apart from the enclave of women’s studies, the university curriculum consists
          of “men’s studies.” They mean by this that most of what students normally learn is designed to maintain and reinforce the existing patriarchy. To anyone who actually believes this, combatting the standard indoctrination
          with a feminist “counter-indoctrination” seems only fair and sensible.
          The British philosopher Roger Scruton, aided by two colleagues at the Education Research Center in England, has pointed to several prominent features that distinguish indoctrination from normal education.1 8 In a competent, well-designed course, students learn methods for weighing
          evidence and critical methods for evaluating arguments for soundness.
          They learn how to arrive at reasoned conclusions from the best evidence at hand. By contrast, in cases of indoctrination, the conclusions are assumed beforehand. Scruton calls this feature of indoctrination the “Foregone
          Conclusion.” According to Scruton, the adoption of a foregone conclusion is the most salient feature of indoctrination. In the case of gender feminism, the “foregone conclusion” is that American men strive
          to keep women subjugated.
          The “Hidden Unity” is a second salient feature. The foregone conclusions are part of a “unified set of beliefs” that form the worldview or political program the indoctrinator wishes to impart to the students. In
          the case of the gender feminist, the “Hidden Unity” is the sex/gender
          interpretation of society, the belief that modern women are an oppressed class living “under patriarchy.” Indoctrinators also operate within a “Closed System” that is immune
          to criticism. In the case of gender feminism, the closed system interprets all data as confirming the theory of patriarchal oppression. In a term made popular by Sir Karl Popper, gender feminism is nonfalsifiable, making it
          more like a religious undertaking than an intellectual one. If, for example,
          some women point out that they are not oppressed, they only confirm the existence of a system of oppression, for they “show” how the system dupes women by socializing them to believe they are free, thereby keeping them docile and cooperative. As Smith College transformationists Marilyn
          Schuster and Susan Van Dyne note, “The number of female professors who still see no inequity or omissions in the male-defined curriculum serves to underscore dramatically how thoroughly women students may
          be deceived in believing these values are congruent with their interests.”
          But what these approaches dramatically underscore is how “effectively” doctrinaire feminists deal with any henomenon that poses the remotest threat to their tight little mental island. Gender feminism is a closed system. It chews up and digests all counterevidence, transmuting it into
          confirming evidence. Nothing and no one can refute the hypothesis of the sex/gender system for those who “see it everywhere.”
          Sommers p97

        3. thanks for the info and link mate any books that you would recommend on this line of thought? Particularly on free speech and dissenting debate being banned or discouraged in Uni’s?

        4. oddly there are a few women authors like Sommers (who stole feminism) and Daphne Patai (a lesbian (ex?)-feminist! professing feminism: education and indoctrination in women’s studies) who’ve actually been most vocal. I think that the problem is that male academics are too afraid (henry makow lost his job and is pretty conspiratorial).
          Also I have wishlisted:
          http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0470674512/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=39B5PXLH796ND&coliid=I2MRKUAD7MY7KU but haven’t read it yet.
          Personally I think British (former marxist, now somewhat libertarian online mag Spiked(.com) is an excellent campaigning source for free speech and has taken feminism and leftist excess to task over academic freedom, student union censorship e.g. blurred lines etc
          I’d welcome some alternative recommendations myself if anyone knows of any

    2. Jeeb, universities had a nasty politically correct taint in my day (the 90’s), but they’ve gone batshit insane since then. The guy in the picture above, bemoaning that he “needs feminism” because people expect him “to be a man”, would have been openly ridiculed in every bar on campus back in the 90’s.

      1. Absolutely, and I guarantee you a part of the guy in the above mentioned picture thinks he’ll be swimming in pussy after his heroic stand against ‘the patriarchy’. Don’t mean to be a pessimist but I really can’t see universities changing in the near future in fact it looks like the feminist agenda will become ever more entrenched in future university constitutions.

        1. It will Jeeb, that’s why the universities in their present form are doomed. They no longer produce much of any value. Online education will eat them alive.

        2. universities have resorted to appealing to the youth’s desire for an easy, fun time, now that they realize most of what they teach is worthless and turns regular people away. UNI’s are no longer solely places of learning. they are now part indoctrination camp, part daycare center, part theme-park resort, complete with gyms, childish activities, buffets, and whores. And here’s the kicker: the naive, loving parent is paying for this shit, for their child to be turned against them. America is doomed.

  29. This is a solid, logical argument, and I agree with it. Women’s suffrage was the beginning of the end for Western Civilization. Right now we are just playing out the string.
    What a dystopia we live in today. Sure, there’s enough food to keep the fatasses in this country happy, there’s cable TV and petty entertainments to keep the masses satiated and warp what’s left of their minds, and there are techno gadgets everywhere.
    But the family is destroyed, men are neutered, the working class is enslaved by the government, there is no freedom anymore, Orwellian surveillance is taking place on a grand scale, a Police State further limits and intimidates men…we’ve truly traded away what’s worth living for.
    Much like pigs on a farm, everything is taken care of for us, but we can never leave the pen. Most western men are trapped with no hope of escaping the White Woman Plantation. She’s got you by the balls. And she’s not done. She’s coming for what little dignity and respect and freedom you have left.

    2. We certainly live in ‘interesting’ times. Seems like the end is near, at least the end of this current, longstanding paradigm. You know, the one that ensures the individual personal freedom and property rights…yeah. That’s going away pretty fast. Women are not completely to blame, but they have a massive hand in this. Shocking, right?

      1. the problem is that when something is broken… like for example the US Treasury Bonds that support the $20 Trillion debt…. it can carry on spinning for a very long time… longer than you realize.

        1. I agree. I’ve been expecting this system to come crashing down any day here, but it’s not. A corrupt, credit based system like we have in the US can go on and on, for a very long time…as long as you patch it up with enough bandaids along the way. But eventually, it should end. Time will tell.

    3. See my post above. I’m past the point of thinking there is hope for the current system, but then again, when a society has to resort to banning words like “fiesta”, “bossy” and, most revealing “merit”, you know this can’t sustain for much longer. Emphasis on banning “merit”, because how much longer can a society function if we celebrate and encourage people to be their worse, which is what the whole “fat acceptance” movement is doing? Exactly. Whoever or whatever civilization adopts ‘skin in the game’ as the standard for voting, will likely obtain hegemony, weirder still I believe it will be a city-state.

      1. There is a lot of historical evidence to support your belief that something akin to a city-state will be the next form of human governance. I tend to agree with your analysis. In fact, I have studied and experimented with methods of building structures and societies for over a decade. The time to put this theory into action is almost upon us, I feel.

    4. I too feel like we are living Animal Farm with some 1984 and Brave New World thrown in as well.

      1. I feel like we’re living in Animal House with a little 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes in the mix too.

        5. You can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

    5. holy christ of england. are you a real person? please tell me you’re a comic.

        4. aw dang it dude. you got me! better get back to my cave. and yes. we like to toss each other’s lucky charms.

    6. “”Our’ women are whores”
      Last time I checked, I am my own master. I am not a possession, so no “OUR” anything.

      1. It’s someone else’s problem! Not “OURS”!
        Some people never learn.

        1. Except the problems presented here are a bunch of non sequiturs, slippery slopes, and cherry pickings; all of which are known as logical fallacies….

        2. Logical fallacies are common among the pathology. I highly suggest looking up “Right Wing Authoritarian Followers” on Google. Also, the book [The Authoritarians] by Bob Altemeyer is a great text on it. 30 years of research backs up the fact that Conservatism, whether Tory, Tea Party, or Taliban, is a pathology.

      2. OK, you’re your own whore.
        Terrific semantic distration, though. Is this so hard to understand?: “The women of our countries are whores”

        1. Women like “Mayz” commenting here always ruin the threads.
          Look how she posts her pic with her mangina.
          He must be so proud. Lol.

        20. Such women actually know what is meant. But they pick and pick at every sentence, phrase and word trying to turn everything a man says into something of which they can accuse him.

        21. Such women actually know what is meant. But they pick and pick at every sentence, phrase and word trying to turn everything a man says into something of which they can accuse him..

      3. Interesting how women always say things like this and yet want ‘our’ money to pay for every expense they incur.

        2. Its hilarious that you are tired of something that you don’t even understand and, I’m guessing here,as an American haven’t ever experienced…

      4. As long as you need 3rd person to protect your rights against person like me who can do it physically and mentally alone you are not your own master.

        2. Guns do exits, but I doubt you imagine that shoot at person even in self defense is as easy as it is in TV where “strong” feminists do it without second hesitation.

        3. Well, is the gun the 3rd person I need to protect my rights such as not being raped? But who will handle disputes if not a judge to judge fairly when you insanely say my property is yours? Who will ticket you when you drive drunk and hit a car with children in it?

        4. Libertarians are Political Philosophy’s Underpants Gnomes.
          Step 1: Freedom! And small government
          Step 2: ?
          Step 3: Functioning society.

        6. Its the other way round. Most Libertarians are Anarchist of the actual sociological definition (not the ‘cool’ dude in beret calling him self an anarchist to pick up Posh girls with daddy issues expressed as ‘anti-authoritarianism’ at university type ‘anarchist’).
          They seek to tear down society and all it gives us without any replacement.

        8. The female brain does not allow them to shoot as accurately at a moving target. I find the bold attitude many gun owners have a bit odd, though I do guess most are probably better skilled at shooting than the common thug.

        12. Where did you get the idea that you have a right not to be raped? If it wasn’t for rape(s) you wouldn’t exist. Everyone is descended from women impregnated in rape.
          Perhaps this is unpalatable but get over it. Avoid rape if you can but don’t let that control your life.
          The slogan: “Don’t tell us not to ______________ (fill in the blank)”; tell men not to rape” is one of the most foolish ideas of feminists. Isn’t threatening men with prison if they rape “telling men not to rape?” Isn’t loosening due process so that many men have been imprisoned solely on a woman’s accusation “telling men not to rape?” Isn’t watering-down the principles “innocent until proved guilty” and “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” “telling men not to rape?” Some men simply don’t get the message, or think an exception should be made for them.
          So if each woman doesn’t accept responsibility for reducing her exposure to rape, swallowing the “tell men not to rape” as if no one ever had, that it’s a novel idea, more women will carelessly expose themselves to a heightened risk of rape – in addition to the risk of being subjected to otherwise crimes.

        13. They also in general don’t have the “macho” affliction of behaving as if they think they are supposed to have been born with skills. From what I have seen women usually follow what an experienced firearms instructor tells them.
          Where women tend to fall short is in judgment: the “shoot-don’t shoot” decision.

      5. Fuck you, cunt. You are an property, if not your husband’s then the State’s.
        Guess who your master is, fuckface?

      6. I am a man of Western civilisation. That does not imply ownership or possession, but belonging – I belong to the Western civilisation but nobody owns me. As men of Western society, we can speak of the women of Western civilisation as “our women” – the women who belong to us, though they are not possessions.
        With the semantics out of the way, why don’t you stop being a whore?

        1. Assumptions make you look like an ass. Last time I checked, we are all indigenous to the earth, and we all have the right to live here. I’m not your women just because of where I happened to be born.

        2. You’re not my personal property but you belong to the same civilisation as I do. (Do more to honour the language, by reading rightly.)

    8. If this the end of Western Civilization, fucking good. Western Civilization sucks anyways (see World War II.). Also if women are whores isn’t that better for people like you or

    9. I’d say America’s emergence as a world power, and the leftward shift of the Liberal Party, were the beginning of the end. Women’s suffrage was the escape route caving in.

    10. “Right now we are just playing out the string.”
      You do realize what happens when you pull the string?

    11. “Right now we are just playing out the string.”
      You do realize what happens when you pull the string? .

  31. There is legislation forthcoming in Ireland at the moment stating that each political party must have at least 30% of candidates female in future elections. As far as I am aware there are no laws in Ireland preventing any female from running for public office yet the powers that be feel that as there are not enough females in politics they have to bring it into law that political parties must have a quota of females on the ballot. I will make it my own private policy never to vote for a female candidate in future. The system has become so stupid and drunk on feminism this is the next step into decline. Maybe we should look for quotas for females in coal mines in Turkey.

    1. Perhaps they will line women up at gunpoint and force them to be candidates.

    2. 24% of candidates should be children to reflect their proportion of the population.

      1. I wonder where the quotas are that state women should make up 50% of all frontline combat troops, or constitute 50% of construction workers last I remember the feminists weren’t fighting as hard for this type of equality.

        1. Why blame the women? Blame the men who are always willing to do handy work for the stupid bitches.

        3. Would agree with Jim below here, both need naming and shaming. Unless the men are gay I’ve found most men support the agenda in order to get some action while blissfully ignorant to the fact the very agenda they support will make it impossible for them to score with the brazen bull dyke warriors.

        4. You just described the paradox of humanity since the beginning of time; endless hordes of pussy begging beta men self-detrimentally sucking up to women in a futile attempt at sex, while she pines after and fucks the alpha. Great for the alpha, bad for society. This will never change.

        1. because evidence doesn’t support women committing the same crimes as the prisoners…

    4. I’m Canadian, and although your post is old, in Canada, we recently elected the Liberals, and they make sure their candidates are 50% men, 50% women! Not based on talent, but gender.

  32. I would say that voting i.e. democracy itself is a problem. Once you say that we are all equal, one man one vote, everyone else expects an equal share of everything. Currently in the UK, there is a movement for Parliament and Chief Execs to reflect the population. In other words 50% of them should be women. Why? Just because that’s why. No consideration of whether this many women want these jobs or are actually capable.
    It is nearly time for humanity to progress to the next stage of governance. Self-governance or the absence of government.

        1. Didn’t you know that you’ll get a ban if you reply to Раковски? LOL

      2. The US government was NEVER intended to be a democracy.
        As designed, the people did not vote for the Executive branch. That was reserved to the Electoral College.
        Nor did the people vote for the Judicial branch. THAT was nominated by the Executive and approved by the Senate.
        The Senate itself was originally voted by the State Legislatures. It was intended to be a “surge protection” against mob rule. That safety valve, built into the Constitution was short-circuited by the 17th Amendment.
        ONLY the House of Representatives, literally the lower house was elected by the people, as written in the Constitution.
        In this manner, all of the Executive branch, all of the Judicial and half of the Legislative branch was removed from meddling hands of voters and lobbyists.
        Hence, THE REPUBLIC!

    2. You don’t think we actually live in a democracy, do you? It’s democracy in name only. The entire Western world is a neo-fascist oligarchy. Has been for decades.

        1. Democracy works well in it’s early stages, then it always runs off the rails at some point. Every democracy in human history has failed at some point, usually after starting off very successfully. Democracy is extremely easy to undermine. Divide, then conquer.
          I must remind all “lovers” of democracy of one simple example: Germany directly prior to Hitler was a democracy, one which he legally usurped control of then did away with.

        2. Democracy generally only works well when coupled with a thriving economy. Economies ebb and flow, and a thriving economic state or situation is not always present. Democracy is always easily undermined during periods of economic upheaval; ie your example of the rise of Nazi Germany. The idiot masses always want free money and economic assistance, which always comes with brutal strings attached. Nothing is free. Ever.

        3. The fall of the west, began with people being suckered into accepting that it was OK to limit their own availability of arms, to lesser variants than what the state could procure. Democracy is a fine and dandy way of making collective decisions without having to go through the hassle of having every darned disagreement devolve into shootouts. But only the presence of a de facto individual veto (which requires the ability to hold firm when saying no, hence guns enough to dissuade the state from overstepping their bounds), can reliably be counted on to prevent tyranny.

        4. A thriving economy and a homogeneous society (then again, that may be redundant if the first require the second).

        5. My StG-58 is every bit as powerful as any .308 wielded by a LGBT Lowered Standards Marine. More so really, since I’ll take the time to aim and not spray and pray, what given that I actually have a limit to how much ammo I can carry and no ready chain of supply to replenish my stash should a clash of arms occur.

    3. And we have already a government Minister for Women, Bob. Aren’t we enlightened?
      We might as well have a Minister for Cats.

    4. It is nearly time for humanity to progress to the next stage of governance. Self-governance or the absence of government.
      QFT
      What men need to realize however is that this isn’t going to come about as some kind of shoulder to shoulder movement. Self governance means each one of us needs to stand up and work outside the current system on our own, and recruit more men. We literally need to stop participating in the current system while still creating real wealth and value through self governance. The way to go about that will be tricky, to say the least, but the internet and things like the still imperfect traceless encrypted monetary systems (Bitcoin, etc) seem to be the gateway to making this happen.

      2. The trouble is that too many men are soft men, followers. The idea of being responsible for yourself is foreign to them. I had a discussion with a guy in the office regarding the fast food strike. He supported the strikers. I told him McDonald’s doesn’t owe those people a job. He disagreed and also said they should pay them more because they can afford it. He displayed the kind of economic ignorance you expect from a woman. Take me to dinner because you can afford it.

      3. You’ve got it right there. And I’m telling everyone who reads this that it’s not as hard as you’d think to live pretty far outside the system while maintaining whatever lifestyle you choose. I’ve been self-employed pretty much forever, I started mowing lawns for cash when I was like 10. Do you think I filed that shit with the IRS? Fuck the IRS. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it right now: fuck the fed too. I’ve been done fucking around with stupidity since before before.
        So yes, I agree. Make your own wealth out of the resources God gave you. All the credit scores and quantitative easing are fictitious bullshit, it’s a trap used to keep stupid slaves in line. Don’t be a stupid slave, it’s pathetic to watch. And by the way, as people will continue to discover as their jobs are cut and sent elsewhere, being self-sufficient in this way is the ONLY real job security you will ever have.

    5. I had no idea that there were so many men interested in self-governance on this site. I suppose I’m not that surprised. This old-school message board style of debate attracts the cream of the crop, as far as I can tell. Lots of intelligent men ’round these parts, yup.

  33. As if women voting is already bad enough…now were probably going to have a woman president (clinton) in a few years…

    1. I don’t think she’ll live long enough or maintain her faculties. She’s quite sick.

    2. Let’s hope not. I’m a huge fan of the United States and want to see it continue to exist.

  34. Men shouldnt vote either, we are kings, whatever policies elected officials ‘decide’ make no difference in what I’m going to do if I really want to do something. Voting is outdated, the few do not represent the masses and even if the masses are like minded I might not be.

  35. Indeed the female vote has been a disaster. They will vote security first and are easily fooled by a slickster with a good smile.
    But…
    they won’t be giving up that vote
    Therefore, say goodbye to civilization.
    Remember, any women who wants to tag along with you for protection shall not be fed nor given weapons. Give her a shovel. It will be needed to bury her with.

    1. Herr Doktor, I would never suggest we politely ask women to give up the vote…

  36. Good article. Worthy of ROK. Nice to see things are picking up around here.

  37. The issue is a bit more complex than outlined here in this short article, but the premise seems correct. Women tend to vote emotionally. This can be evidenced in the fact that abortion seems to be the most important issue for female voters, hands down. Women will vote for any con artist politician (leftist) as long as they claim to protect abortion. The other issues (economy, foreign affairs, etc) are largely irrelevant to woman. It has taken a long time, but women are at least ostensibly firmly in control of the direction that the Western world is taking. Of course they are pawns that are being manipulated, but it’s all the same. It’s comes as little surprise that the West is headed towards a massive, oppressive surveillance dictatorship, for all of our safety and security, of course. Women have little need or desire for freedom.

    1. Women have little need or desire for freedom.
      Spot on. Women need a protector and a provider. So long as this is catered for the stupid cows will just carry on grazing and vote accordingly.
      The state has decided to replace men as women’s provider in exchange of their votes. It’s simply business.

      1. Damn that’s a key point you’ve made here this notion of the state now being a protector and provider gets to the root of many problems in today’s society this deserves an article itself.

      2. It’s pretty scary. Men are an endangered species. Maybe we’ll make a comeback when the welfare state ultimately fails and women once again suck up to us for security and provision.

        1. If men preserve themselves as species we will definitely come back but the biggest problem is that the male physiology is changing towards the female (the yin).
          I could elaborate on this theory in a proper article but the moderators of this site keep banning me so I don’t know if I should bother at all.

        2. I tend to agree with that theory. Men are adapting poorly to our kooshy, modern environment. There are a lot of weak, sloppy, pear-shaped loser men out there, many with boobs of their own. Many, many useless males out there. Massive wars used to take care of that.

        3. That physiology change you mention happens over and over again to successful nations before their eventual collapse. The effeminate men and their women are then wiped out by their more masculine brothers of an invading nation (depending on a couple of things). History has repeated this drama again and again. Peculiarly, in times gone, new nations would rise up to consume the decadent. Today we are seeing a nation rise up within a nation to consume itself. No doubt this option is better and (along with our technology) ensures our immortality as a nation. It’s only a matter of time before the cultural façade can no longer be maintained. All that’s remaining now is for the right “leader” or group of leaders to come along to unite this new nation. The effeminate leaders of today have no true power. They can be disregarded with little to no consequence. One masculine man is worth 10 of these girly men.

        5. Quite true. The first recorded words of a Celt were of a Celtic woman mocking a Roman woman for the Roman custom of their women selecting effite, effeminate men to marry, whereas she indicated that the Celts chose their men based on their best (most masculine) qualities. Not surprisingly of course the Romans soon thereafter withdrew from Britain and their empire collapsed.

        6. Thats what makes this website cool.
          We have different opinions instead of following the fucking herd like females.

      3. it seems like women n the leftist want a safe zoo enclosure or habitat where there is no danger n free food n health care. the men are just willing to kive in the jungle despite its risks.

  38. As much as this would be ideal. It’ll never happen. Women have been liberated…we lost the battle when we allowed them to go to school.
    Keep them dumb, keep them ignorant. Pandora’s box has already been open.

    1. “It’ll never happen.”
      Stop imagining “The end of history”. There is no such thing. Things ebb in flow and always have. It will return some day. Will it return in our lifetime. I doubt it but it will eventually happen.

      1. You actually think women will give up their right to vote? What women do you associate with?

        1. I never said they would “give it up”. It might be TAKEN from them sometime in the future by a new society when this one collapses. Who knows? There is no way to predict the future with perfect accuracy. But again, there is no “end of history”.

        2. Women have been voting on and off in Afghanistan, too.
          No society with female suffrage will be able to stand up to societies where women are instead dedicated to pumping out soldiers and their loyal, fertile wives.

        4. if you want to make women give up their right to vote just say: sweetie you either stop voting from now on or Im leaving you like a bitch that you are. Works everytime

  39. Good analysis of female voting leading to alcohol prohibition. That piss-poor failed legislation was the direct result of shrewish, misguided, sexually frustrated, busy body older women having excessive time on their hands and being allowed to organize and vote. It ended very badly for all.

    1. There is a certain kind of karma to what happened to Carey Nation though, bitch was insane and it took a toll on her, but hard. And good on that, I say.

    2. Maybe you are confused about the timeline of technological inventions…. Back then, there was a lot of work to do be done around the house. Now, anyone and their kids can do the household chores.

  40. Voting is a waste of time and total bullshit. You’re just consenting to be governed by corrupt idiots. Have fun standing in line in a sweaty gymnasium on Election Day – I’ll be poolside!

    1. And leading to the decline of Western Civilization. Thanks for pissing on the Constitution and our veterans.

    2. That’s not quite logical Sam. Is drawing down with your .45 on a man who is trying to kill you consenting to violence in any form? No, it’s self defense. While I do think voting is nearly useless, it’s not the same as consenting to being governed, it is (for me anyway) trying my best to shield myself from idiots who will vote my life away. Even if they win the election, I don’t consent to be governed by them.

  41. Indeed, we may see this come to pass with the coming disintegration of the US or whatever passes today as “the west”. However, welfare and privilege are stubborn things, that said, even in the politically correct theocracy today, post the correction, there is a lot we can still do.
    Thing is, feminists hate merit, as referenced above. They need “inclusion” and “diversity” because without it on merit alone men would out-compete them and still do despite their obstacles. That said, on the other side, I think the notion of democracy will be challenged. A solution I think is best, is to grant the “privilege” of voting only to people who qualify as having “skin in the game”; credit to Nassim Taleb. It makes sense, if compulsory voting brought us to societal wreck then who votes will matter going forward. And its best for only the people like Rand’s producers to vote, because, although not perfect they’ll make much better and constructive decisions, since, asking for more welfare, for instance, will only hurt their livelihood. Unfortunately, this privilege may have to endure the PC treatment and therefore be open to all people, regardless of their assigned PC buckets, but that may not be a bad thing. Women who have a vested interest in a business will still vote a whole let better and more like a man from those that don’t. Better still, as mentioned, if merit were to reign again, and it follows it will have to in lieu of a failed welfare state, then once again most of the people that will obtain the privilege of voting via skin in the game will be men.

    1. Starship Troopers makes more sense after reading your post.
      The BOOK, not the movie!

      1. Interesting. Haven’t read the book, saw the movie and didn’t like it. What makes you say that? I’m not proposing that serving in the military should be one of the qualifiers for voting in my above post. FYI – I was in the military myself. As honorable as service was a long time ago, just as we’ve seen with the failure of democracy, especially of late with barry the potus and the progs, I’ve come to realize that the military is just another arm of the state. Albeit, an arm that even the most libertarian among us would support. However, like with all large bureaucracies, over time, it exists for its own sake (ref: military industrial complex). People wonder how an idiot like barry gets elected not once but twice. The answer is that ~ 47% of all people get a handout…but its not just them…who writes the check for military people and all the businesses tied to it? The state. So, as neo-con as a defense contractor may appear, they’re interest are aligned to big state candidates. That means they might say they vote for bush but in secret vote for barry or hildog. In Starship Troopers the mobile infantry led to being a citizen, but, in the city-state or civilization that I envision, these are, unfortunately, the same people that would lead back to the welfare state. No, skin in the game should be economically defined. Any fool can join the military and most do…I think we have seen enough of what fools will vote for.

        1. In S/T CITIZENS could vote. CIVILIANS could not.
          Citizenship came after difficult and dangerous service. That was deemed to constitute “skin in the game” because they had invested … literally their skin.
          The book is available as a pdf download on several sites. It’s about a day or two read. Several of the monologues are worthy of note-taking.
          I taught a GED class for incoming recruits for the Army a few years back. My library in class was quite popular, but I kept losing copies of Starship Trooper. I bought about 40 copies from some store that was shutting down and laughed about it for a year. Lost every copy, about one a week.

      2. Another thing, going on with my city-state thesis. If you had skin in the game voting privilege, a pro-business and pro isolationist foreign policy, plus, had economic policies that are good for capital i.e. very little taxation that is flat, then you’d quickly create a very wealthy society. With that wealth and given that technology has advanced, I’d buy the best military and probably outsource most of it to BlackWater. An entry level BlackWater mercenary makes ~ $200,000.00/year…yeah, I think they’re a bit better than the effeminate punks making < 30 K/year in the u.s. military or elsewhere.

    2. I am a feminist, and I believe in competition and merit… Check your logic again…

      1. No you don’t. The logic here is straight forward; voting should be a privilege and only extended to people with skin in the game, such as Ayn Rand’s producers. I think this should be made available for all people, even women; because, the very few women who will qualify for this will likely vote in-line with the men to keep the society and culture healthy for producers. Sadly, that will mean no special little help from the state to make you more competitive. And, even if a couple of feminazi’s achieve this, the numbers will never be high enough to make a difference. Add in the old Constitutional Republic, which among many other things, is engineered to create gridlock e.g. its very hard to pass any new laws, and you have the makings for an exceptional society. Do the complete opposite, which is to reward and empower the takers and you have a society like we have today…a women’s one to boot.
        I check into logic and quickly found that feminism has no place there.

        1. So, us feminists cannot possibly agree with the Atheist Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Judge Napolitano and what not? Just so you know, I wrote Ron Paul in, and I was at the HELM promoting him. I do not support atheism though.

    3. They need “inclusion” and “diversity” because without it on merit alone
      men would out-compete them and still do despite their obstacles.
      This.

  42. I’m sure many states still restrict idiots from voting. That would exclude most females.

    1. The normal filter for keeping stupid people from voting, which is apathy or ignorance, has been short circuited in these united States by the Democrats who now have expanded voting days to nearly a full month, whereupon they import bus loads of homeless and inner city trash, feed them a meal and tell them to vote Democrat. That was at one time illegal, but now it suddenly gets a pass. Without that short circuit we’d still have something resembling sane voting patterns.

  43. I always thought thata good system would be one where people were given votes on merit. If they are an active member of society, then by some system they become awarded a greater voting influence.

    1. That’s Heinlein’s premise in Starship Troopers.
      I’d prefer men only, and only men who owned real property (land) and could provide certified proof of ownership (or at least owned a real business). And I’d also require a literacy test, a math test and a test on knowledge of the Constitution before certifying even them for the privilege of voting. Just basic tests, nothing you’d need a PhD to pass, you know, like solving 9th grade level algebra, reading comprehension pulled from the daily newspaper, etc.

      1. It was a glorious day today though Dean. I think that was our summer 🙂

        1. Yeah, cracking day. Looks like the same for the weekend as well – good for daygame! (God we’re so British talking about the weather). Cheers.

    1. Especially because she and Bill act like they want to hide something about her health.

  46. Women’s Suffrage was not the beginning; it was the end. Everything since then has been the natural and logical consequence of it all. The beginning (if not the Garden of Eden itself) was the legal/economic standing granted to women at the end of the 19th century.
    And people knew it back then.
    Selections from the book, Shall Women Vote: A Book for Men by Conway Whittle Sams (1913). https://archive.org/details/shallwomenvotea00samsgoog
    “Not so many years ago we were introduced to the New Woman. The character, duties, position, and functions of woman as they have been construed, accepted, and acted upon since the dawn of history, were suddenly found by her to have been all wrong. Woman was now to be regenerated, to be given her proper position in the economy of the universe. A new light had dawned upon the earth, and all creation was to be made better and happier by this so-called emancipation and elevation of women. A score or so of years have passed since then, and the New Woman has now become, we might say, a middle-aged woman. We know her better than we did when we first made her acquaintance. During these years the aims and ideals which underlay that movement have been made manifest by what has transpired since the agitation began. We have seen men’s places in the business world taken by women; divorces multiplied, and still increasing, most of them brought by -women against their husbands; household duties neglected; the care and the training of the children slighted; the children growing up unruly, ill-mannered, disrespectful; the parents largely subordinated to their children; prolonged absences of wives in the summer; husbands put in jail on preposterous grounds; then put under rules which tend to destroy utterly their influence and their authority in their families; disorder and violence unheard of before in the
    home, and the family hearth often stained with the blood of the wretched members by whom and for whom death was preferred to the domestic anarchy in which they were living. But these things were not enough. Upon the shoulders of the men already staggering under the weight of Ossa, Pelion is now to be piled. The New Woman comes before us as the Suffragette. But as that word has already acquired a deservedly odious signification the word “Suffragist,” or “Equal Rights,” or some other such subterfuge or substitution is put forward in place of the
    primary word to describe her. The Suffragette, then, not satisfied with being a
    woman, asks or demands as a right to be made a man. She demands the political
    power of a man. Why? Is it in order to discharge better her duties as a woman?
    She is a woman, not a man. There is nothing in the present construction of
    society which hinders her from being the most glorious and blessed, the most
    illustrious, admired, and beloved of women. She was created as an helpmeet for
    man, not as another kind of man; and no one thinks any the less of her for
    being what she is, so long as she does not try to be something else. It is
    impossible to make her anything different from what she was born. But, although no one can make women men, society can so alter the relations between the sexes as to ruin their harmony. What the Suffragettes are now asking men to do threatens to accomplish this. Is any one so simple as to believe that the Suffragette is demanding the right to vote for the benefit of the men? Is it not perfectly clear that the movement is a thoroughly hostile one to men? If so, why do men seem not to appreciate the far-reaching consequences to them? Do men now get too much satisfaction from their relations with women, and consequently would not be the losers if they were to receive less? Is it not apparent that if women had the right to vote, they would claim the right to hold office, to sit in the Legislature,
    to make laws? And is there a man so stupid as to believe that if women, who are
    in the majority in the eastern part of this country, had the power to control
    legislation he would long have a right left on earth? From what has
    already been done at their instigation can he imagine that he would be
    benefited by what might yet be done? As a man, now, with the record of the past
    few years before you, do you believe that if women had the right to vote, your wife,
    with her head full of political ideas or ambitions, would be any more disposed
    to attend to her household duties than she is now?” (P. 273-76)
    “Conditions are thus forever going from bad to worse, and will do so until the men wake up to the seriousness of the situation, and reverse the tide which threatens to overwhelm them with dire afflictions. Woman’s suffrage is the worst thing that could happen to them, for the men of Virginia can with confidence expect that if
    women have the right to vote every radical enactment adopted by any other State
    will, sooner or later, be attempted to be forced upon Virginia. And, since men
    have by their weakness, indifference, or apparent willingness to submit to such
    treatment encouraged these attacks, the ingenuity of our legislators will be
    further directed against them. A husband is now viewed with an evil eye. He
    seems to have been placed in a very unpopular position. Nothing seems to be bad
    enough for him. No one ever says a word in his favor. He is a target to shoot
    at. Take him and kill him, for there is none to deliver. Husbands, too, need
    not suppose that these divorce suits, which their wives have now learned to bring so promptly against them, involve only the separation from their helpmeets. This separation they might be able to stand, in some cases, with great fortitude. But if that were all that is to be obtained by the divorce, not so many of these suits would be brought. Probably the main object of the proceeding may be to obtain a decree for alimony, a decree which, while giving your wife an independent income at your expense, may put you in jail, or in bankruptcy, or in both.” (P. 162-63)
    “The women you would have to deal with would not be the ones you admire and love. No; these would be at their homes attending to their womanly duties. You would have to deal with the leaders of the suffragette movement; or, worse still, with other even more violent and dangerous characters who may have supplanted them in this movement to turn the world upside down.” (P. 281)
    “To believe that the demands of the Suffragettes are right is to believe that the
    race from which we are sprung has been wrong throughout its history. There is
    nothing new about women. There is nothing new about children. These two classes have existed for thousands of years. Up to a few days ago the world was in peace and quietness on this subject. No question was raised suggesting that our race had not properly interpreted the mutual rights and obligations flowing from the relations existing in the family circle. Is it not, therefore, possible that this whole disturbance is a made-up affair; that we are having a bad dream, or rather a dreadful nightmare, over nothing, and that if we would awake, recover full consciousness, look facts again in the face, and exercise our sober reason, we would see that the only sensible thing to do is to go back to where we were before the disturbance began?” (P. 282)
    “It was said a few days ago in the papers that the clinging type of woman was
    becoming rarer. Of course everybody knows what is meant by the word clinging,
    the dear, sweet women that men can love and trust, and who are fulfilling the duties which are naturally theirs as the helpmeets of their husbands. Under existing rules, is there any wonder that they are becoming rarer? The question may be asked, how long will it be before they vanish altogether? Women are what men choose to make them. The woman of the past, who was a friend to man, was so made by the rules of society formulated by men. The woman of the future may be anything but a friend to man. Developed according to rules which she may desire to lay down, she may become his competitor, his rival, his opponent, in the outside world, and in his home the source of vexation and misery untold.” (P. 114)
    “When all the women such as we have always thought of women as being, or trying to be, or at least being told that they should be, shall have been ruined and
    utterly exterminated by these new laws, what have the men of the world to
    expect in the way of pleasant companionship, affectionate cooperation,
    sympathy, and love from the race of shrews, scolds, termagants, amazons,
    viragos, furies, and suffragettes who would take their places? These last are
    surely insatiable. With all that has been done for women in the past few years,
    their present demands convict them of being true daughters of the horseleach.”
    (P.78)
    “With all the zeal of a new cause, the Suffragettes are now clamoring for the right
    to vote. After having it given to them, who would be much surprised to hear that
    they did not really want it, that they just wanted to see if they could get it?
    But the mischief would have been done. The Suffragettes, who are now ladies,
    would be replaced by others. The floodgates would be opened, and there would be thousands who would be only too glad to take advantage of it.” (P. 289-90)
    “How long does any reasonable person believe that a system such as we are rapidly drifting into can survive? Wives are represented as objects of terror to their
    husbands, and are made the threadbare subject of jokes on the stage, in the papers, and in the various other ways by which the public receives its strongest
    impressions. These jests might have seemed funny at first, before the feminist
    idea had attained its present dimensions; but they are no longer so; they are ghastly. They are doing all they can utterly to ruin in the mind of every woman her
    proper duty to her husband, and to foster in the mind of every man the idea, “No Wedding Bells for Me.” What can the end be of such a system? The institutions, customs, laws, habits, the very men and women of any country, can be utterly demoralized and ruined, if enough people are bent upon the accomplishment of such ends. We have already gone too far. It is high time for the men of the various States of this Union to consider seriously the present conditions. It is not yet too late to remedy them, but it may soon be. We have become intoxicated with the idea of political liberty and equality, and have foolishly brought these ideas into play within the family circle, which they are destined to ruin, if this policy be not reversed. The husband must be reestablished in a position of dignity and power, and the father must be reestablished, or the deluge will be upon us all men, women, and children alike.” (P. 300-301)

    1. Wow, that is intense. These clips makes Return of Kings read like Jezebel. And so prophetic!

    2. Very interesting, the author had a clear view of the situation. And now we are at the other end of the line, with society crumbling and on the brink of collapse and/or revolution. That took about 100 years. 100. Almost no time at all, if you think about it.
      I’d never even considered how detrimental women’s voting power was. I had considered how oppressive governments can be, but not how maniacal women are in control of such power. I doubt women are epigenetically disposed to wield such destructive force, and so they go mad when they try.
      Men are more used to having the lives of others in their hands, and learn to moderate the ‘high’ of knowing that you control whether someone else lives or dies. Think about it: when (if??) you practice a martial art and you get your opponent in a locked-in headlock, at that point you are deciding whether he lives or dies. If one is a skilled fighter, he may make this decision several times a day. He learns how to appropriately choose the amount of force to use. Eventually, good fighters are the most likely to defuse a situation, because they have finally learned what violence is–its uses and its costs.
      Women are physically weak. They have no experience with learning to moderate violence because they are, at the most basic personal level, almost completely incapable of it. They have no instinct for how to control violence, and they have no historical or social cues to teach them how to control it either. The government is violence, it is force. Perhaps most men can handle themselves with dignity in such a system, but giving women control of it by majority vote is like giving a toddler a cocked and locked handgun.

  47. The welfare state pays single mothers to squat out feral kids by multiple men without having to hold down a husband to pay for it all. The welfare state means the government is substitute Daddy for these women and their bastard offspring.

    Ironically this system makes employed women who pay taxes to support their irresponsible “sisters” for pumping out bastards.
    I’ve brought up this before, but can you name a single science fiction writer in the last century who foresaw that “future women” in the 21st Century would become obese, tattooed, promiscuous and fecund with the illegitimate kids from their hookups?
    Aldous Huxley saw part of the truth in Brave New World in his portrayal of the Future Slut character Lenina Crowne. But at least Lenina kept her Malthusian Belt stuffed with contraceptives and used them properly, stayed at a healthy weight and didn’t visit the dermagraphics shop when she got bored.

    1. Brave New World was far closer to the mark than any of the other classic dystopian novels.

      1. I think 1984 nailed it with the Ministry of Truth and double-think though.

        1. Yeah, we’re kind of a mishmash of the dystopias. A Brave New 1984, if you will.
          All speculative fiction I recall reading, and the movies prior to the 1990’s, had women as thin, feminine and as helpers of men, except for the few times when they were cast as dystopian shrills on matriarcical planets who, ironically, only needed a good rogering from the square jawed masculine American astronaut who crash landed on their world to revert back to submissive and feminine. The only “pro-female” sci-fi I can recall from prior to the 1990’s was “The Stepford Wives”, and honestly I view that kind of world with a wistful feel good nostalgia. How fun would Stepford wives be, I’d love that kind of thing, given the present reality we face of fat, highly tattooed, belligerent sluts.

  48. Women run on pure animal instinct and have no fucking clue how their actions affect others. Letting them vote is like letting your dog drive you to work.

      1. Incoherent. if you are going to insult someone, at least make sense.

        3. That’s totally overlookable once, and your comment was fucking hilariously true. This bitch is having a stroke.

        6. Please go away woman. Hasn’t your dumb ass figured out we don’t like you or your pussy-begging mangina man-slave?

  49. I think the appeal of the Steampunk genre derives in part from the sense that it shows a world when white men in Great Britain and its colonies, and in the youthful United States, ran things and they didn’t feel conflicted about the fact. And the women who talked about the wonders of voting, sexual freedom and other “experiments of living,” as John Stuart Mill phrased did, did so as theoretical exercises they picked up from journals, books or public lectures (a lost art from Victorian times), without really jumping into the deep end of this abyss because they had traditional upbringings which gave them prohibitions against such unseemliness. Despite the progressive mind control project to make us think Our Ancestors Did Everything Wrong, the fact that we find that way of life appealing now says something about the failure of the false consciousness progressives and feminists have wanted to impose upon us.

    1. Self abasement just isn’t very attractive, whether it’s grovelling for the sins of your ancestors or apologising to feminists because you have a penis, or decrying your so-called privilege because you are cis scum or whatever.
      So yes, I think a lot of retro appeal is down to the sunnier mentality of more optimistic, more self-confident, more masculine times.

    2. That’s a fantastic insight, RedneckCryonicist, I hadn’t actually put two and two together regarding the Steampunk types, but now that you phrase it like that it makes perfect sense. They long for the optimism, clearly.

  50. So…Women got the right to vote in 1920 in the US…now in 2014 we have streaming internet porn. Thanks women! I think that your essay makes some points that jump to many illogical conclusions. In the past I’ve always said that men are, in my opinion, more logical than women…I may have to rethink that stance.

  51. also we should ban women from driving due to their lack of spatial awareness.
    score 1 for saudi.

  53. No one should vote. Democracy is just another form of tyranny. It’s sold as perfection and people cling to it like a religion, even using it to justify the slaughter of innocent people in foreign countries, when it just makes it easy to control people. If 51 percent of people believe I should lose my home just because, then legally I lose my home. The United States was never intended to be a democracy, but a republic, which are not the same things despite what some people say.
    I’ll give an example of democracy’s power being used on private property. Here in my home town, a popular movie theater began serving alcohol a few years ago. Of course, the local moral guardians threw hissy fits, as no one under the age of 21 even knew that alcohol existed before this. So it got put to a vote and this private business lost it’s right to serve its customers what they wanted, all because the mob rules.

  55. Steve McMahon for President…. this reads like a real political manifesto…. great writing…. Brilliant Sir… Thank You.

    1. Thank you Ray! I am hoping to become God-Emperor, but President would be fine too.

  56. Voting is another illusion of freedom of choice, when you are really just choosing which pre-approved candidate for mascot you prefer. Do you want coke or Pepsi? Crest or Colgate?

  57. I’m sorry – SINGLE mothers only exist because a MAN who got her pregnant did not stick around – it’s not a woman’s job to “hold them down.” By saying that, you’re actually advocating that women take mens freedom by insisting they stay and take care of their unwanted children.
    You should really write another article about why stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Ignorant Bastard.
    Also – rape culture is real. Idiot.

      1. Of course there is no such thing as rape, sexism, or racism. It is a tool created by the left.

        1. I’m liking this comment because it is so blatantly wrong, I am pretty sure it is sarcasm.

    2. Perfect demonstration of why stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. “Ignorant” mangina.
      Single mothers only exist because they LET men fuck them without commitment. Rarely used to happen in the old days, such women were publicly shamed as WHORES. Men were not allowed to “fuck bitches like a playa” and then split; they would be outcasts. Women’s FATHERS (men) would enforce this, aka shotgun wedding.
      Also, rape!
      Idiot.

    3. I’m intrigued by your username “MEN WHO AREN’T STUPID”
      Are you more than one man? Perhaps you’re Siamese Twins who aren’t stupid? If there’s one thing that certainly can never be accused of being stupid, it’s ALL CAPS.
      Sure rape culture is real. I hear that if you leave a condom under your pillow, the rape fairy visits you during the night.

    4. Strange how under Patriarchy men did stick around and the culture was that if you got her pregnant you got married. It is feminism that created unwed mothers.

      1. Bitches need to learn to keep their legs together.
        Simple fucken solution isnt it??

      2. Women were legally obligated to stay up until about 100 years ago. Then it was CHRISTIANITY that saved marriages.

    5. Single mothers exist because women are sluts and whores who open their legs to bad boys who cannot take care of themselves much less anyone else. Then those same women cry and throw temper tantrums that daddy isn’t saving them so they demand the power to vote others do it for them.
      Women are children and children shouldn’t be given any real authority because they can’t handle responsibility as your post proves.

  58. These bigoted, anachronistic, and self-absorbed ideas are beyond idiotic and unsubstantiated. This entire website is crawling with the world’s most incompetent and foolish individuals. It was a horrific experience to stumble upon this fucktarded excuse for human behavior. Here’s to hoping some of you find your dicks and start acting like an adult.

    1. Hi Ross, you sound a wee bit bitter. Usually when someone gets that upset, it’s because nothing stings like the truth.

      1. did you coin that term? blue-pill? or did you use a word that only has meaning because somebody else told you it did?

        2. Jim. Sorry, I asked a question. Obviously, there’s a raccoon using your computer. Maybe, if you see this and aren’t a raccoon, you can take a second and answer the question. Warm regards!

  59. That’s the thing with civil rights, once you give them out, people think they’re entitled to them. Always question the value of left wing “progress”. If their reasoning for said progress is little more than equality or “being nice”, then it’s not worth pursuing.

  60. A common thread throughout the comments section here is about Clinton (Hilary) becoming president, I’ve not been keeping up much with current U.S political trends but can someone tell me if this is an actual possibility or just a laughable joke? I shudder at the prospect of this two faced, double speak, war mongering, feminazi coming to power in arguably the most powerful country in the world.

  64. Every generation era has its downfall. I think the whole leftist/politically correct/everything must be equal/affirmative action/(I can go on forever) is just the downfall of this era. Its only a matter of time, I say 10 years from now, when all those leftists manginas get hit in the face with reality and realize that there are somethings like culture, social facts, and human behavior are out of our control, no matter how unfair they are. Life is unfair no matter what. Sure, it would be nice to have everything equal, that’s a very noble idea, but in reality that will never ever work. Look at Sweden, Norway, France, Italy, Ukraine, and all the countries that imposed feminist laws on the private sector and on the government, they are all waking up. Last time I was in France there was a HUGE protest against Femen that was not covered by the media. Sweden is finally realizing that all the feminist laws they imposed aren’t working (you still can’t find a female construction worker, Swedes engineers are 90% males, etc…).

  65. Love it! Never a truer word was spoken, well maybe one or two but surely not many.

  66. I agree with tw but how far would the anglo pride powers that be have gone to deny a self sufficient swarthy “ethnic” to the spoils of his ideas and labor without this pragmatic setback?

  68. You’re a fucking idiot to even think that female suffrage in the Western World has lead to the downfall of civilization.

  70. I agree with this article for the most part, but the West was already coming apart well before women got the vote. The European powers had not grappled with the concept that industrial technology was making wars between major powers too destructive to fight. They went ahead and destroyed Europe, twice. America had attempted suicide with the Civil War (may have succeeded?), and was well prepared for total war socialism by the time 1917 came around..
    Marxism was already a going concern well before women had the vote, driven primarily by men. Collectivism of all flavors was well advanced throughout the West before women got the vote, and loudly touted by many men in absurd utopian writing and speeches. Many men were already taking the comforts produced by modern technology as a sign that they could give up working, creating and advancing (give up being men).
    Women saw their opportunity to have all the benefits of men, without men, and took it. Men allowed and in many cases encouraged this. Men committed suicide as much as they were murdered by women.
    Still women should not vote, nor should men.

    1. So, who’s going to make the decisions? I am my own master, and If I am living in this nation that takes my money, I am most certainly going to decide how my taxes are going to be used.

    2. Brilliant post, I could not agree more. Men showed pity towards women, that was a HUGE mistake.
      Pity is nothing less than the multiplication of suffering, in that it allows us to suffer along with those for whom we feel pity.

    3. Marxism AND Feminism were and are largely jewish movements. Every cancer in western society from marxism and feminism to immigration and porn have overwhelming jewish majority.
      It’s the sad fact we all know but are still afraid to talk about.

      1. The Jews are behind the gradual poisoning of the west. I will say it. They are behind feminism, multiculturalism, in race mixing, communism and the abundance of degeneracy we see today. The jews prosper in decadent dying nations, and are at odds with healthy strong nations who don’t put up with their attempts to monopolize power, so logically, they seek the decadence and decay of our nations.

  72. “Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote”
    THIS! THIS! On behalf of all of us – Thank you for having the courage to say this.

  73. The best solution is simply to have two parallel governments, at least for a while.
    Women will vote for their government officials.
    Men will vote for their government officials.
    Each government will have all the stuff our current government has. Military, bureaucracy, taxation, etc. Women government taxes the women. Men’s government taxes the men. Etc.
    What do you think would happen?
    Within 3 years, the Women Government would be asking the Men Government for help. Then money. Then military support. By year 5, Women Government will fail.
    Now, after that, would men allow women to vote in THEIR government? I sure hope we would not make that mistake again.

  75. It’s entertaining to sit and watch you all day dream about days that will never come. Taking away our right to vote? fucking hilarious!

    1. love, one day it will come to something you know nothing of: violence
      and in this you will always lose.

  76. “Our universities have become a bizarre combination of daycare facility, pick-up joint, and grotesque circus of left-wing drama.” This really says it all in one sentence.

  77. The Tony Abbott government of Australia is an example of how things
    should be at most. The only woman in his cabinet is the chief diplomat.
    She can cluck with the other chickens and make sure wars dont happen.

  78. This shit isn’t exclusive to the West. Traditional housewives from traditional societies are rapidly opting out from their household duties as well. They are embracing the principles of your much more dominant herd of women.

    1. “They are embracing the principles of your much more dominant herd of women.”
      They aren’t dominant at all. That’s a myth. They have just transferred their dependence to the government.

      2. It doesnt matter if they arent really dominant. As long as they are percieved to be more dominant, that is all it takes.

  79. Speaking for myself: if women can vote, then they can serve the draft/mandatory military service. Israel and Russia do it with their women.
    Steve McMahon, Ban Mayz; she does NOT understand that feminism, as we know it, was founded by SINGLE WHITE WESTERN FEMALE, her ilk.
    Let’s name names, while we’re at it.
    Virginia Woolf: feminist foremother (if it were an actual word; even my auto-correct got triggered). Eugenicist AND Anti-semite.
    Margaret Sanger: founder of Planned Parenthood. Advocated abortion on black women. Eugenicist.
    Oh, even this article shows the white woman’s complicity of LYNCHING.
    http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/02/11/white-women-defense-lynching/
    I almost forgot: going back on topic, please don’t tell me “women’s suffrage” were started by (single) white females, just like with single white female feminism.

    1. Aww, don’t do that! It’s kind of fun to look for her not-fully-formed arguments throughout the comments. It’s like “oh, let’s see how much more retarded one person can get in the span of a few scrolls” or “how is she going to be a perfect example to support the article this time?”

    2. feminism was created and instigated by Jews, just like most of the other shit that has torn the west apart from the inside. “here we go with the jews” “oh the poor jews get blamed for everything” yeah, you know why? because they actually are the ones behind these evils. they are the disease, and all this degeneracy eating away at our civilization is a symptom

  80. Let me make this clear: A democracy is NOT a free and fair system.
    How can you empower the masses with the right to vote, when the masses are politically uninformed and will almost always vote in an incompetant government. The politicians will always shape shift their policies to appease the voting populace in order to win votes because when they come in to power they can earn salaries and make a living.
    With regards to the female vote, there are more men than women in a voting base so the politicians always pander to women to win more votes.
    How is this a fair system? Especially since the largest contributors of taxes are men (i.e. they have the most skin in the game).
    This was truly an excellent article, and the commments are top notch.

  81. I keep getting hi-jacked to YouTube when I try to read the comments. Fuck YouTube, did somebody improperly embed a video, or wtf?
    To Google: YouTube sucks shit through a 10 million foot garden hose. Fucking assholes, eat shit, fuck off, and die.

  82. i just wanted to see some tits, i am immensely disappointed.

  83. websites like this make me really upset. so sad that some people believe misogyny and sexism are ok.
    i hope one day everyone can realize how cruel prejudice is.
    equality to all men, women, gays, heteros, black, yellow, red and white. WE’RE ALL HUMAN and have the same value!

    1. oh so a good taxpaying doctor has the same value as a homeless pedophile? fuck off you ignorant twat

  84. I would prefer if no one voted, but this is a step towards that at least. No one should be able to vote to force their neighbor to do / not do something.

    1. so I shouldnt be able to force my neighbor to stay off my property? if my neighbor attacks my family I shouldnt be able to force them from doing so? If my neighbor is a rapist, I shouldnt be able to force my way into his house and rescue the victim? or call the police, indirectly forcing the same outcome?

  85. And now I understand where the misandrynists get their fuel from. Harking back to the olden days is pathetic, talking about a golden era that never existed is fantasy. But I refuse to fall into the will fully ignorant trap you have and paint all men the same way. Treating people as if they’re worthless only pulls us as a species back, it does not propell us foreward. And before I get the insults: I am a socialist, lefty, educated, cultured, traveled, bisexual, mixed race female, who has no need to get laid. We’re all humans, and treating one part of the population like dirt will do nothing to raise your own self perceived status.

      1. just a matter of time before she gets as vote for every identity she has.

  86. Excellent article. One of (if not) the best articles ever submitted to ROK. I’ve been screaming about this for years to anyone who would listen. Giving women the right to vote has destroyed America. But now that women have the power in D.C. and in our state capitals and in our courts they will never give it up. Look at Obama; he had 2 nominations to the Supreme Court and both were women! Women are writing more laws every days to enslave the men of this country. Look at all the fools on TV shilling for Hillary to run for president. The liberal men who promote these feminist agendas are even more despicable then the women. But I fear it is too late. Taking the vote back from women today will need to be done by the barrel of a gun or it will take some other cataclysmic event even more ruinous to the US. When that happens, women will find out exactly where they stand — the same place they’ve been for thousands of years save this blip of time.

        1. once again, we see that females are guided by emotion, not sound reasoning. How the fuck did we ever get duped into letting them vote?

    2. Indeed, my 8th grade history teacher referred to the 19th amendment as “the Great Mistake”–took awhile for the red pill to reveal he was right. Thanks to women, we also have Obama ruling like an African dictator.

    3. “I’ve been screaming this out for years to anyone who would listen” -Let me guess, your only listeners were your equally sexist and empty upstairs cyber buddies on returnofkings?
      I have a feeling that all of the men on here with unjust hatred towards women, probably have zero luck with women. You’re all probably socially awkward nerds, don’t know what the hell to say to a woman, come off creepy and weird and get turned down all the time, and have probably had sex less times than the fingers you have on one hand. And THAT, I hypothesize, is what this whole cult is full of: men who don’t get laid.
      At least you don’t have to spend any money on condoms or taking a woman out to dinner?

  87. uhm… most people don’t vote anyways… you’re fucking retarded to say that women shouldn’t be able to vote. you’re setting civilization back to the days where it wasn’t illegal to rape and pillage. in sparta it was law to beat your slaves, go fuck yourselves… the title is reason enough to throw you off the flat earth… o wait…

    1. Plenty of financial raping and pillaging going on right now, and the regular kind as well.

  88. From votes for women to the current diseased society there is a straight unbroken line. Women belong in the home with their sexual urges controlled to have a happy productive society. Allowing them free reign to f**k who they please and reinforce their bad decisions by allowing them to vote for someone else to foot the bill is the reason the west is dying. Imagine if young men could commit violence against whomever they wanted while others had to pay for it – same thing.
    Now voting is worthless (thanks women) and everyone is a slave. Good job. Brave new world. Enjoy it.
    Expat and loving it

  89. You know what’s stupid? That this article is smarter than most manosphere articles, and is still stupid.
    Shit, gay as MRAs are they at least use facts from time to time and not this rhetorical drivel. Screw the rest of the manosphere!

  90. Perhaps voting should be restricted to people who have engaged.in military service or who provided some tangible benefit to the country they live in.

  91. Any chance we can fire up the banhammer on this thread? The females on here are lowering the group IQ of an otherwise very important article and thread. I’d say leave ’em on if they were more humorous…but they’re not funny, they’re just stupid.
    On the other hand, the men posting here are having an amazing discussion. Thanks for this article, RoK.

  92. Now this is a smart article. I am a gay man and support the annihilation of gender roles and flaccid tradition (since those things seek to kill me) but I never thought I would find someone smart enough on your side to realize you lost this war a hundred years ago. So many blame the sixties or the gays for the coming changes. Too late to stop us, thankfully, but kudos for being the first I have seen to figure it out.

    1. When the world enters another harsh k-type environment, which will certainly come in the 50-100 years, all of this folly will be thrown out with the garbage. As Camille Paglia said, if women ran the world without men, they would be living in mud huts the next day.

      1. I will grant you that. War is the mother of invention and without the patriarchy we would all be running around naked in Africa still. But with the advent of tge internet and modern science, how much longer can you count on the brutality of men, i wonder? How long before gender is obsolete?
        Perhaps your side wull triumph and your pathology will.cast us into another dark age, for a time. We will be back. We will always come back to hammer at the walls and fight evil because that is the nature of good. And eventually we will succeed.

        1. Gender roles are the product of natural selection. Get back to me when we’ve figured out how to control, or even predict the weather and then I’m willing to entertain the idea that we might be able to overcome natural gender roles. Go stand in the path of an F5 if you’re so confident of our triumph over nature.

        2. The man I fancy is quite girly and I am friends with a few transgendered people. I also have a female friend who is in the military and choosing it for a career. And I live in Oklahoma and have survived an F5 tornado in a storm shelter during our May 3rd storms.
          Thank you for playing.

        4. Anecedotal evidence is perfectly acceptable as a rebuttal to this “natural selection” horseshit you didn’t bother substantiating with evidence and just asserted. You want evidence? Then give me evidence and not your MRA assertions-as-reality crap plz

    2. Too late to stop you? You don’t even realize what’s coming for you. Do you think the loose coalition you belong to will support you once your common enemy is defeated? Which racial group supports gays in territory it currently controls? How are you doing in Africa, Mexico, South America, Asia, and the Middle East. I know gay rights are doing just swell in the Muslim world. The best you can hope for is the situation that exists in Europe. Gay marriage is legal but as the Muslim population increases you are less and less free to pursue your rights in public. You should have supported liberal white people more, since they’re the group to which you owe your success.

      1. I mainly support high IQ people, if I had to choose one. And the Muslim world is already suffering under the onslaught of female liberation. Muslim forums are full of Muslim girls asking why they can’t date or be with nonMuslims while their male siblings can (to name just one mini rebellion). Why else would the boko haram target education and girls? Their violence is just the mad thrashing of a man with a plastic bag over his head. Let him kick over a few chairs and shit his pants in the panic – it will end the same way.

    3. Also, I’ve been studying the sexual politics of the English-speaking world since Victorian England on my own, especially when all the sexual prudery was the order of the day and England was the Evil Empire of the world; nowadays, its Old Money Club wants to make it blatant England won and intended to rub it to the world’s face.
      Specifically about homophobia, let me present this case in point: homophobia was a common theme in Hong Kong-made films, back when HK was a British colony; yes, before England returned Hong Kong to mainland China in 1997. I even watched one that turned out to be a classic 80’s AIDS fearmongering homophobic propaganda. Once I found that Hong Kong flick, I’ll share it.
      Guess what is the “proper” Anglo/western reaction? “ASIANS ARE HOMOPHOBES!” Yet, a lot of them FAILED to realize homophobia was a colonial import.

      1. No such thing as homo”phobic”. It’s a leftard coined shaming word. You saying it over and over doesn’t make it any more real either.

  93. ” in 1918, the British Parliament made a historic mistake. It gave women the vote.”
    Half-truth.Just the women who paid taxes and were above 30 y.o. as opposed to all men who were above 21, or 19 y.o. veterans.
    Univesal right in 1928, until then barely any woman could have voted – old enough, who had money, were too conservative to vote.
    So it`s 1928 to be correct.
    Universal right to vote in USA established in 1920.
    In France, Italy and Japan in 1945.
    So the fall of France, Japan and Italy in 1940`s could be connected with no universal vote rights as well as fall of British empire to having one since 1928. =)
    Taxpaying women were able to vote much earlier in different periods of time and countries, like in middle ages or XVIIc.
    Paying taxes is a universal and just factor for having right to vote.
    Basically, if you want to make a point, don`t write in a simplistic tabloid style, with no strong arguments or mixed facts.

  94. To the person who made a comment about supporting the abolition of gender roles, are you advocating that men should be dependent on women? While you’re at it, advocate LYNCHINGS on women as death penalty for a false accusation aimed at them; after all, MEN DID DIE from FALSE ACCUSATIONS via LYNCHING.
    Oh, as for this topic, let me introduce you to Rebecca Latimer Felton: women’s suffragist, white supremacist, and LYNCHING advocate.
    Look her up.

    1. Cool staw man, bro. You are masculine only insofar as you choose to be. It isn’t inherent to you. If you want to be a classic gentleman who holds doors for people and protects the smaller weaker people, I am fine with that. I am that way myself. The guy I fancy is more girly and I am alright with that too. Freedom from gender roles means freedom to be who you are without fear of violating some ludicrous rule about what a man should be.

      1. “Cool [straw]man, bro.”
        I just asked you a yes or no question; heck, you just dished out an ad hominem by calling me a “staw man (sic).”
        As for your type of guy, we collectively don’t care and you are just dishing out a big fat red herring when you mentioned about the abolition of gender roles and your own personal preference towards effeminate men, instead of addressing the issue whether you support this topic’s issue.
        Don’t you even dare pull off a Chewbacca Defense.

  95. Hey, all of you think it’s bad now? Wait 20-30 years out when our governments are completely filled by cunt, at which time it will be seriously proposed that MEN be denied the vote! Due, of course, because of their responsibility in creating all the problems of the world.

    1. There is an old Polish film, called Sexmission. They predicted it.
      ————–
      The two protagonists, Max and Albert, played by Jerzy Stuhr and Olgierd Łukaszewicz, respectively, submit themselves in 1991 to the first human hibernation experiment. Instead of being awakened a few years later as planned, they wake up in the year 2044, in a post-nuclear world. By then, humans have retreated to underground living facilities, and, as a result of subjection to a specific kind of radiation, all males have died out. Women reproduce through parthenogenesis, living in an oppressive feminist society, where the apparatchiks teach that women suffered under males until males were removed from the world.
      The cold-shoulder treatment Max and Albert receive from the women, their character differences and specific realities of future life serve as background of many humorous encounters. The plot thickens when it turns out that the females have no interest in the rebirth of men, and that for the good of society, the two males are to be killed or “naturalised,” i.e. undergo a sex-change. While trying to break away, Max and Albert find out the impact of their masculinity on women. With one of the scientists on their side, the men choose freedom and prefer to escape and die outside. In doing so, they discover the truth: radiation was just a feminist lie to keep women underground and the surviving male population were “naturalised” into women by the feminists when they took power in the post-war period. As a result of discovering the truth, both Max and Albert begin thinking of bringing the world back to normal.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexmission

  96. The right to suffrage should fall into 3 categories:
    1.) currently serving or honorable discharge from the armed services
    2.) current federal tax payer (or local tax payer for local elections)
    3.) owner of real property, i.e. home or land. (not apartments, timeshares, multifamily dwellings, etc.)
    If you do not satisfy at least one of the above categories, you DO NOT get the vote. period.
    Immediate disqualifications –> current recipient of govt. entitlements (e.g. section 8 housing, WIC, food-stamps, unemployment, medicare, medicaid, social security etc.)
    *Social security payments could be declined in exchange to preserve one’s voting privilege.
    Lifetime disqualifications –>
    1.) convicted felon (currently on the books),
    2.) illegal status in the US (at any time, no matter how brief),
    3.) employing, harboring or otherwise aiding an individual illegally within US borders
    4.) formal renunciation of US citizenship, a “dual citizenship” holder, or one determined to be an enemy combatant aiding a foreign government or group either financially or materially (as adjudicated by a military tribunal).
    The above solutions will solve the problems this post eloquently illustrated. (Notice how there is no mention of sex, gender, ethnicity or other liberal buzz words*)
    Illegal status implies no ethnicity.

    1. All of the above suggestions will never get passed in any state government or at the federal level.

  97. I notice that non-Anglosphere female politicians have a higher account of accountability than their Anglosphere counterparts do, back when I was growing up in the 90s.
    Thatcher supported Apartheid and the mass financial destruction of English men, to the point the English CELEBRATED her death. I wish I was making this up, but couldn’t.

  98. Good post. In fact I would go to more extreme lengths, but as this is my 1st post. I’ll keep it simple

  100. Women’s sufferage happened at the turn of the century, the time when, medicine was advancing, along with transportation, communication, technology, the understanding of the world and pretty much everything was betting better. Taxes were created to help fund the war effort, World War One happened around that time and are still around to find government programs, if you actually knew your history you would know that. If the world didn’t change drastically there wouldn’t be any modern luxuries, control is needed to maintain order. All your argument are so stupid and u can tell they were thought put at all and you also have no understanding of history and economics. If you want to live in the past so bad move to an amish settlement. You’re obviously just a but hurt 13 year old with no basic knowledge who can’t get laid.

  101. “The universities admitted them, which is why male students today find themselves harangued about imaginary “rape culture”. They swarmed into the workplace, which is why working men today find themselves terrified of sexual harassment or discrimination accusations from spiteful female co-workers.”
    All these shenanigans could be easily avoided if these men just resisted the urge to rape people all over the place, don’t you think? Apparently all women did was “being” there. Surely it’s not their fault…

    1. rape culture is complete bullshit meant to intimidate men and forward feminist doctrine. it’s an utter fabrication, a lie.

  102. My one and only gripe was that prohibition in the US was the 18th Amendment. Universal suffrage was the 19th. Prohibition preceded women’s voting. Even so, it’s a powerful display of women’s influence on politics even without democratic franchise. Machiavellian indeed.

  104. OK, while I agree with the thesis in general, there is a massive hole in the argument. Something may have happened between 1914 and 1918 that had a lot more to do with the decline of empires, and the destruction of traditional values, than women’s suffrage. The British Empire limped on until Suez, but the beginning of the end was the Somme, not woman’s right to vote.

  105. I can’t believe you people are real. This is an elaborate prank by the onion, right?

    1. Get out of your basement. You just might find that people have ideas different from yours.

  106. Wow, I thought they didn’t have the internet back in the 1800’s! I guess you must be a time traveler or something, Mr. McMahon- nothing else can possibly explain your mind-numbingly ignorant, virulently bigoted, anachronistic views.
    Also: what your generation deemed “incredible brilliance” is now referred to as “unfathomable stupidity.” I trust you will make the adjustment in your biography.

    1. Here we go again with the same old “don’t you know it’s the 21st century” bullshit. Listen boy, ideas are timeless. If enough people believed in slavery today thered be slaves. If enough people grew to believe that women shouldnt vote, women wouldn’t vote. What century it is has nothing to do with it. And I noticed you used all the liberal buzzwords like a good little programmed goy. pathetic.

  107. Gee, for people who hate women so much you devote an awful lot of articles to them.

    1. We don’t hate you, dear child. But we do solemnly understand your unchangeable nature, and we wish to counteract your role in the degradation of civilization.

  108. Steve McMahon
    is a thirtysomething British man who is both incredibly brilliant and
    uncannily dapper. He lives in the beautiful English countryside with his
    two boys, his wife, and his cat.
    Dude this guy loves to kiss his own ass.
    But that’s beside the article. I already have several complaints about it.
    1. “a man’s career can now be ruined and his reputation traduced if he offends against the latest dictates of political correctness.”
    Rebuke: Then forsake your reputation. As far as I see it, one is not truly a success if he cannot do the things he wants to without giving two fucks about.
    2. “Women have a herd mentality. Rugged individualism, healthy masculine
    debate, and raucous male laughter offend their sensibilities.”
    Rebuke: Not in 2014. The herd mentality of women is slowly disappearing and if we want to have this way of our life we need to take it back. Stop complaining about it. Fight the law if you have to. Human law is never perfect.
    3. “For the sake of our civilisation, for the sake of all men and women, we
    must undo this historic wrong turn. Women have no business voting in
    elections for public office, let them stick to voting for things they
    understand, like the X-Factor. This may seem like a quixotic idea. But
    remember—so was women’s suffrage, once.”
    Rebuke: A good portion of women have earned their right to vote many times over.
    Final Point: Show this article to your wife. Let her judge you by herself.

  109. It’s funny how he blames women for getting alcohol banned, when it was the man’s fault that alcohol was banned in the first place. They would get into fights and come home from drinking and abuse their wives and children. And they couldn’t handle the real world without living in a booze-induced stupor, and so others took advantage of their weakness. Thus, the criminal underworld was born. And now men are happy because they have their alcohol. They can abuse their wives and children, get into fights, and get behind the wheel of their cars and kill and cripple people. All because they can’t handle life without their booze.

    1. I am no fan of booze. But I think the criticism of the prohibition is warranted. It was inept, poorly thought out, poorly executed and says a lot about what happens when women get in charge.

  110. Hard to take you seriously when you can’t be bothered to check when King Edward began his reign (hint: it was after 1900)

  111. I was watching the HBO John Adams series the other day, and there is a scene where Abigail chides John to give women the right to vote and he basically takes it from her and doesn’t argue back. I was curious as to the historical accuracy of this scene, so I looked it up.
    Abigail Adams did in fact write her husband a letter (they had a pretty much lifelong correspondence) urging him to consider the rights of women, particularly in regards to the franchise. Contrary to shrugging his shoulders and ceding the moral high ground, he responded thusly (emphasis added)
    “As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient-that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent -that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented.
    Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.”

  112. Nice post dude I feel like a wimp for not advocating this publicly more without fear (with due prudence of course but even in private). I have reached the same conclusion or at least would like to exercise my right to free speech to talk about it

  113. So basically you hate all women? Ok then got it right. If you want to take the rights away from your wife just move to one of those countries where women can’t vote, can’t work, can’t drive and can’t go to school, can’t drive or can’t even go outside alone by herself. Good luck having the life there!

    1. You are a classic example of why women should not be permitted to vote. You probably have what passes for a collegiate-level “education” these days, yet still exhibit the reading comprehension skills of a small child. You are, simply put, not intellectually qualified to participate in the civic life of the United States. The only ballot you are capable of casting, is one that is marked on the basis of your ill-informed ignorance and hormonal buffoonery.

  116. Agree Men should lead Woman should Follow, Emotional female minds should not participate where logic is needed.

  118. I was thinking if I were to rule over a country and rollback women’s suffrage (one in Europe) it would become the greatest in the world, but is it still possible without the rest of the West to jump at me for expressing immense misogyny, even get invaded for offending women?

    1. I doubt that other countries would invade you for that especially if you become a strong nation (as is the inevitable result of a red-pill nation). People in the middle east behead rape victims ffs, so I’m sure youre safe in removing women from the voting pool.

  119. Great you don’t think women should vote. Well they can and you’re gonna have a hell of a time changing that.

  120. This is ingenious. It’s a scientifically proven fact that women are too emotional to think as rationally as men. I think that a good solution to this could be to stick all the women who lose their virginity before marriage into brothel camps, where they can service men the way they were meant to do.Maybe you could buy one to be your wife if you really wanted. (Although I don’t see why anyone would do that when they can get a perfectly good virgin!)

  121. I’ve been pouring over this site for the last hour because I find it so fascinating. Never before have I stumbled across such (sophisticated and well-articulated) anger towards women. I have been reading article after article, trying to find some common ground to work from. I know this comment will likely be met with malice, but I hope that perhaps it will reach a few of the men sitting somewhere closer to the rational side.
    First, I will acknowledge one key point: I understand where some of the anger comes from. It’s common in popular culture for the loudest, most outrageous version of a social movement or group to get the most coverage, and there are definitely some strands of feminism that are domineering and oppressive, and actually achieve the opposite of “equality”. I understand that some radical feminist views are outright sexist in themselves, and that is NOT okay. But it’s important you realize that there are many nuances within feminism. One “feminist” woman may be a conservative, religious, passive, stay at home mom, while another is a radical, communist, anti-male advocate. Both believe that they are advocating what’s best for women, their families and society as a whole, but the word has very different
    meaning to each of them. The word “feminist” really has no meaning at all when used so generically because it is such a vague term.
    Second, it’s important to realize that MANY feminists care deeply about some of the issues touched on in various articles on this website. I consider myself a feminist (as I’m sure you’ve already guessed) and you may be surprised to hear that there are many “men’s rights” issues that I continuously advocate for (along with my other causes). Studies show that suicide rates are much higher among men. Rates of depression and alcoholism are much higher among men. In general society, women are much more likely to be raped, however this does not apply in jails were men are violated at astronomical rates. Not to mention the disgusting rape jokes that are made about men in prison and always get a pass (this happens
    less often with rape jokes that have female victims). Outside of prisons, men are also much more likely to be the victims of violence crimes (without a sexual element), though the perpetrators of these crimes are disproportionately men. When the perpetrators are women, those women are much more likely to be let off without legal punishment (because women are seen as weak and men are supposed to be able to ‘protect themselves’). Studies are also starting to show that our school systems are failing boys, especially in the lower years of schooling, and boys are having more difficulty in the later years as a result of this.
    These things are terrible and as a feminist, I believe these issues should be given equal weight to any other “woman’s issue”. I love, respect and value the men in my life just as much as the women, and I in no way think that women should dominate over the men in their lives.
    That being said, I find it hard to relate to any of the postings on this site because they are so full of anger. It seems as though the authors start with what might be a legitimate point and then lambaste it with, misogyny, dramatic assumptions, generalizations and correlations, then serving it up to their (small) audience
    of other scared, resentful men.
    I really have to say, y’all sound like a bunch of scared children. You spend so much time talking about “real men,” but wouldn’t “real men” feel confident enough in their masculinity to compete with women? Wouldn’t “real men” understand that it’s more logical to search for the best candidate out of all of the possible people, rather than cutting the candidate pool in half? Wouldn’t a “real man” be confident enough with himself to welcome a challenge, even if it’s from – gasp! – a person with a vagina?
    Surely you guys can’t REALLY be this afraid of women? I had no idea we had so much power over you! I swear, we are not the scary monsters you believe us to be! We are warm, and caring, and for the most part, just want a chance to shine the way have and do! We want to show you that individuality that you swear we don’t have (yes, I read the article about all women being sheep).
    In conclusion, y’all don’t sound like “real men” to me – y’all sound like a bunch of scared little bitches.
    Peace & love to you all <3

    1. “I understand that some radical feminist views are outright sexist in
      themselves, and that is NOT okay. But it’s important you realize that
      there are many nuances within feminism.”
      Irrelevant, because it’s the radical feminist views that push the envelope. Until you’re pushing back, you are enabling those sexist points of view. We judge women by their actions, not by their words. Your actions as a gender reveal a profound inability to do other than abuse the freedoms and privileges which we men have extended to you.

    2. Not all nazis shot jews but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate nazism. Feminism is a breeding ground for bad ideas and thus all feminists are the enemy.
      (before you write “GODWIN’S LAW!!!”, think again: I’m not comparing feminists to nazis, which is what this law entails).

      1. Another way of putting it: if some of the ideas that women put forward under the banner of feminism are absolutely loony (and many of them are): why should the remainder of their ideas get a free pass? When a journalist gets caught out falsifying his stories (see: Sabrina Erdely, re: Jackie Coakley) we traditionally stop reading anything that journalist produces because all of their stories are rendered suspect. Why should feminists get a free pass — especially when some of them have called for the outright end of men (Catherine MacKinnon; Marilyn French), the destruction of the family (Kate Millet) and that ISIS beheadings are staged and don’t actually happen (Naomi Wolf, author of “The Beauty Myth”?)

  122. I pray that you men are all single and no woman has to be the subject of your tyranny.

    1. You really don’t understand what a tyranny is. And is that what you call a rebutal or is that the most intellectual respose your weak female brain could muster?

  123. So…anything that isn’t absolute power for men is men’s oppression?
    Good job.
    Also “The days have gone down in the West”
    Implying that there has never been feminism or rights for women in ‘the east’. Nice perpetuation of Orientalism noob. You are an insult to your surname..

  124. we say these thing but when woman come to hate us the what will happen are world will come to an end

    1. Women can hate us all they like. The world may come to an end- for them maybe. When we’re done with their century-long streak of feminist degeneracy, Masculine virtue is going to take over once again as nature would have it. When that happens, these unnatural degenerates will be begging us for mercy. I must point out that Good, faithful women of course are our treasure and have no need to worry.

  125. Ah the good old days, when you could beat your wife within an inch of her life with little to no repercussions.

    1. Yes, as opposed to the present day, when your wife can literally beat you to death with zero repercussions. Or would you like to review incarceration rates for women who murder their husbands?

    2. That’s absolutely preposterous. Yes, it was legal for husband to physically correct their wives like they would their children and that makes perfect sense considering the fact that husbands were legally responsible for their wives’ actions. In other words, if your wife breaks a law, you’re responsible. Under such a system, husbands had to have the right to enforce their authority. However, beating your wife to death hasn’t been legal since the time of Ancient Mesopotamia and even then there were exceptions (such as the Babylonians and their Code of Hammurabi). Across history, wives being the property of their husbands was the exception rather than the rule. Of course, husbands had the authority over their wives because that’s patriarchal and only patriarchal societies survive.

  126. This may just be the most sexist discussion in my life. So woman should not vote because a few woman have done bad things. Voting is a right. Now I know no one would appreciate me saying that Mexicans should not be able to vote . Or men should not vote. SO PLEASE LEAVE US WOMEN OUT OF ANY CONVERSATIONS OF THIS TYPE. ITS JUST BOT RIGHT AND DOWNRIGHT UN AMERICAN.

  127. Do racist, sexist, and overall jerks, which we call Europeans write all of these posts? I think god made women have the right to vote, he must’ve been like: “Well… shit, an empire is taking over my world. Time for a very different form of a flood. One of Freedom.

  129. Well written article, but I disagree. The real issue with voting is that pretty much everyone over 18, regardless of mental health or political knowledge, are allowed to make decisions for the entire country.
    Man or woman, if you are mentally healthy (not psychopathic, schizophrenic or have other illness that may get in the way of humane and rational thinking), demonstrate a good grasp of political knowledge (understands how the government works, knows both the pro/con positions on the big issues well), and have an individualistic personality (not easily swayed by the “herd”), then you should be able to vote. Merit, not sex, needs to be the basis of voting priveleges. Psychological examination and a knowledge test can be done as a requirement while registering to vote. It shouldn’t be too hard to implement, since we already do similar testing for prospective drivers. The only difficulty would be convincing hard liner egalitarians that this is the best course of action.
    Coming back to this post’s argument, it can essentially be summarized like this (correct me if I’m wrong, though):
    1. Lefist policies have hurt the west (already somewhat faulty, since the most succesful countries in the world are generally more left wing than the least succesful countries, but I can still see the point when it comes to immigration and the basic freedoms such as speech and privacy, the two areas where the left completely fails).
    2. Women tended to vote in favor of such policies (Yet another faulty premise, since women only *tend* to vote left, this does not mean that every woman must therefore suffer the loss of political rights. But even then, just because someone has a political opinion you deem harmful, doesn’t mean that they must be silenced. Part of freedom is allowing people we think are dead wrong to have a voice. Remember, men voted for those policies, too.)
    3. Therefore women must not be allowed to vote, so such policies will not be enacted. (We can now reject the conclusion, because the two faulty premises above were its only support and I have additionally provided an alternative solution to western political decline.)

  130. Excellent article. Now, focus that laser intellect on a plan For a renaissance of masculinity.

    1. The rebirth of masculine virtue is going to happen inevitably. The feminists and other degenerates will push us along to the edge of the abyss, and we’ll turn to re assert our place on top. The rebirth of masculinity will come as a reaction to the hell we’re going to have to endure in the coming years.

      1. In the meantime stay away from estrogen producing foods. Eat some good organic red meat, lift heavy weights, know how to field strip your AR….and then go have some fun in the great outdoors.

  131. This is ludicrous. You people who write this website- I wonder if you do this because you are attention seeking or because you truly are entirely disgusting and vile. Your beliefs are abhorrent- you say that no one should receive welfare? You are condemning people to death. You say that there are Americans who deserve to die because they are impoverished. How repulsive. I bet you- the writer of this website- are wealthy enough- with more than enough money. You are selfish enough to hoard it rather than be charitable and kind. I pity you, however. I pity you- who have grown up in this society in which you have been expected to be this masculine beast, this protector of the females- chivalrous and strong. I am so sorry that you believe in upholding your self-imposed superiority and your fragile masculinity. I am sorry that you believe that people are not people but things who can have expectations shoved down their throats- who follow some systematic code to life. You say that women are not intellectuals or strong? Why is that? I am fifteen years old and I have female friends who are way more intellectually stimulating than male adults that I know because they have not been raised upon the gender role of masculine superiority complexes- who believe that they are simply smart because of memorization skills- who have compassion and understanding- not because they are female but because they were raised as a person and not as a masculine beast that it seems you have been raised as. You say that women are not intelligent because they disagree with you. Oh, boo hoo, you little baby who whines and cried when things don’t go his way. You hate women because you feel threatened by them- threatened by them because some of them will surpass you intellectually. Also, you say that women gained the right to vote in the 20’s? No, that was only white women. Women of different races were not able to vote until the 60’s, so if you could please keep your whitewashed history away from me, I’d greatly appreciate it. Also, get Tesla off of this page! I love Nikola Tesla, and you know too damn well that if he was alive in modern times, he’s be an all out feminist. He said something about how he thought that if woman were allowed the same educational opportunities as men, they could surpass their male counterparts. Stop using him for your anti-women government. Also, women are not always going to live in a nuclear family with a husband and kids. You can’t expect that, simply because there are more women than men, and also there are people of different sexualities. Oh, that’s right, I forgot you were the Scum of The Earth™ and would probably say something along the lines of “just kill all of the non-conformists!” I could say so much ore, but mostly I just want to say that I am sorry that you live a life with such pitiful beliefs.

    1. “Also, get Tesla off of this page! I love Nikola Tesla, and you know too
      damn well that if he was alive in modern times, he’s be an all out
      feminist.”
      Nikola Tesla, like most intelligent men, could see exactly what first-wave feminism did to society and where it was likely to take humanity in succeeding decades.
      He gave an extensive interview on the subject to the Galveston Daily News, Galveston, Texas, page 23. August 10, 1924:
      “”I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those
      delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far
      superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively
      speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably
      higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised
      to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy
      of the object of my worship.
      “But all this was in the past. Now the soft-voiced gentle woman of my
      reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman
      who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much
      as possible like man–in dress, voice and actions, in sports and
      achievements of every kind.”
      …
      “”The world has experienced many tragedies, but to my mind the greatest
      tragedy of all is the present economic condition wherein women strive
      against men, and in many cases actually succeed in usurping their places
      in the professions and in industry. This growing tendency of women to
      overshadow the masculine is a sign of a deteriorating civilization.”
      …
      “”I am considering this question not merely from the standpoint of a
      man,” he points out. “I am thinking of the woman’s side of it.
      “As we contemplate any change, we naturally take into consideration the
      results that may follow such an innovation. One of the results to my
      mind is quite a pathetic one. Woman, herself, is really the victim
      instead of, as she thinks, the victor. Contentment is absent from her
      life. She is ambitious, often far beyond her natural equipment, to
      attain the thing she wants. She too frequently forgets that all women
      cannot be prima donnas and motion picture stars.
      “Woman’s discontent makes the life of the present day still more
      overstressed. The high pitch given to existence by people who are
      restless and dissatisfied because they fail to achieve things wholly out
      of proportion to the health and talent with which Nature has endowed
      them is a bad thing for the world.
      “It seems to me that women are not particularly happy in this newly
      found freedom, in this new competition which they are waging so
      persistently against men in business and the professions and even in
      sport. The question that naturally arises is, whether the women
      themselves are the gainers or the losers.”
      The remainder of your post can be dismissed since it’s of no better research, quality, or thoughtfulness than your ignorance on your “love”, Nikolai Tesla.

      2. Alright honey, I’m not going to bother explaining to you that these quotes are taken out of context and that you have misinterpreted them. I could explain to you that he was not talking about biological or hormonal explanations for differentiations between gender roles, but rather describing the detrimental effects of a society that perpetuates these roles. I could discuss this for a long time, but frankly, I’ve hot better things to do. I love how you work hard finding quotes just you can formulate a measley argument with a teenager in the Internet. You’re so pathetic. Please, grow the fuck up 🙂

        1. How could they have been taken out of context?
          “I could explain to you that he was not talking about biological or hormonal explanations for differentiations between gender roles, but rather describing the detrimental effects of a society that perpetuates these roles.”-exactly what feminists do; they try to perpetuate these roles in society, so I don’t think he would be a feminist.
          The guy beat you.

        2. I didn’t even propose my argument… I merely said that he interpreted Tesla’s words incorrectly. This can often happen when a person searches for evidence and they take other people’s words and twist them to fit their own. I could explain more, but I’m not that shallow.

  132. This article is flawed from its opening premise. Kid Edward saw the British Empire shrink under his reign, losing Australia and New Zealand. While his predecessor and mother, Queen Victoria, expanded the empire during her reign to include India and parts of Africa. So to recap, under a woman, British Empire grows, under a man, it shrank.

  134. This a perfect post. Well done, 100% spot on. Obviously the decline of the Western West is not entirely to women’s suffrage, but I can see that we treat it as a certain symbol.
    The Eastern West (eg. Poland) gave suffrage to women in 1918 too, but thanks to more hardships in our history we were able to develop immunity against rotten liberalism.

  135. You are looking for a scapegoat because you don’t like the way times have changed. But women are not the reason for the downfall of mankind and your ideas are not logical because you did not look at the facts and form a conclusion. You formed a conclusion and twisted the facts to support it. We are in a time where success is not based on the strength of the body, but the strength of the mind. Women can be just as smart as men, hun, and I’ve got a good feeling that one day we’ll be running the world. So pull your head out of your ass, and stop trying to fight time. There’s not a chance in hell that the vote will ever be taken away from women, so what you are doing here on the internet, is spouting useless misogyny. You’re also stereotyping every women and man in existence. Does your wife vote?

    1. did you just shit out whatever infantile thought pops into your tiny brain? because that’s what your paragraph strongly indicates.

  136. Excuse me is that website a joke? I laught a lot, but in the same time I was crying inside for so much hate and stupidity. Sorry for you but the world you are missing is dead, fortunatelly.

    1. I am afraid not dear. 🙂 inside every man that world is dormant. The redpill will bring it out, and as you and your ignorant feminist lemmings push society ever toward the clifff – and you will because you just cant help yourself – more men will become redpilled, and someday, we will turn and rise against you, and we’ll remake the world as it should be.

  137. Men were free in 1900? Are there any African-American pick-up masters here who could help me understand how you can tolerate this crap?

    1. Well, you could make the argument it was mainly for white men, but suffrage (the basis of this article) was mainly for white women, so there.
      (Not African American, just making a point).

      1. mainly for white women yes, as there were more of them, but the jews who instigated feminism shrewdly inculcated females of other races too under the banner of suffrage and false promises of equality

  138. It is rare that I find a news article which makes me think “EVERYONE MUST READ THIS.” And on this site I’m finding them everywhere.

  139. Is this a joke? “Women have a herd mentality.” Well, look at history buddy, that is the case for humanity as whole. Actually it is more likely to take place with high violence, the social psychology term is deindividuation. Yeah, the system with welfare, divorce and other laws are pretty messed up. But is it fair to just blame women voting? It is men who created those laws and got the passed. Women were never in office until after prohibition of welfare. Also, affirmative action should be removed because it biased as hell. To blame women voting for Western society failing is too simpleminded. It may have added to some issues, but changes in history are never the result of one event.

    1. Buddy, the more you are around women the more you realize the herd mentality. They are sheep. It probably served them well from an evolutionary standpoint, but it is completely true. Women. Are. Sheep.

  140. Aw, it’s adorable when insecure little men have to resort to poor understanding of history, numerous logical fallacies, and pathetic little insults to desperately reassure themselves that they’re really super special.
    Boohoo. I’ve seen more crybabies on misogynist men’s sites like this than in a daycare facility. And those crybaby whiners? All have penises. What a shocker.

    1. here we go again, an ignorant leftist scared of the truth
      if only i had a nickel for every time this happened

  141. By this logic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan should be economic powerhouses and international superpowers. The postmodern liberal welfare state has nothing do with the female vote and lots to do with Marxism and its nephew, social democracy as well as philosophical movements like postmodernism and poststructuralism which, although joined by women, were mostly dreamed up by men; not women. So if you don’t like the modern world that’s where your critique should go: to Continental 20th century intellectual movements. Your argument above doesn’t make any logical sense.

  142. Banning alcohol was bad for women too because it took away the midwife culture that women used to maintain the health of both men and women and it forced lgbt into the rest of society.

  144. Learned folks across the ages have written essays, articles etc. with excellent logical and rational reasons for denying females voting privileges with some adding the need to keep females out of juries.

      1. That does not change the rectitude of their ideas and arguments. HISTORY teaches us valuable lessons. Linda, do you read history at all? No of course you don’t, women rarely read history unless forced and when they do they are incapable of taking away anything useful. This is another reason why men must always be leaders and women, never.

  145. “Slowly but inexorably, the United Kingdom and the United States… began to tilt leftward.” Brilliant metaphor. I couldn’t help but picture the Titanic.

  146. If women couldn’t vote in Australia The Greens party wouldn’t exist and we would have controlled our borders and stopped Islam decades ago

  148. “should not” ????
    Voting is a privilege , not a right , nobody should vote unless they are landowners or taxpayers.

    1. Yup, not different than taking your friends to a restaurant and buying them dinner. You offer hamburgers, but they (the welfare cases) demand fillet Mignon. The waiter and cooks (government workers) also chime in and sit down at the table to eat steak. You complain, and they override your vote, and slander you.

  149. You guys are all just a bunch of dick heads. Virgin dick heads.The guy who wrote this piss poor article is a dick head. Why don’t you look in the mirror before pointing fingers. Females are not your problem. It’s the fact that you were picked on and rejected in your life. So, you take your repressed angry out on something that you have no control over. Truly it’s self defending.

    1. same old shit from infantile leftists who get scared because they know this is the truth, and just vomit out a slew of incoherent insults. Well men, if the degenerates are mad, we’re doing something right!

  150. You guys are all just a bunch of dick heads. Virgin dick heads.The guy who wrote this piss poor article is a dick head. Why don’t you look in the mirror before pointing fingers. Females are not your problem. It’s the fact that you were picked on and rejected in your life. So, you take your repressed angry out on something that you have no control over. Truly it’s self defending.

    1. same old shit from infantile leftists who get scared because they know this is the truth, and just vomit out a slew of incoherent insults. Well men, if the degenerates are mad, we’re doing something right.

  152. A valid and solid article in more than one aspect, since we were given the vote, we are fighting for more and more, but what good is that? As the years passed, most of us were fighting for more and more Equality, they bother if they come to see with little clothes and go out to the bare streets saying that they are free ?, they took the definition of freedom and made it debauchery, someone should abolish the vote for us, anyway I do not me I’m interested in voting, I prefer to stay home and be a good home-woman.

  153. Ironically, what you are complaining about (the plight of men for the last 100 years out so) has been the plight of women for… a lot longer… So it’s wrong in one case but not wrong in another?

  154. Why do I never see, hear or read of dames demanding equal responsibilities? Never a peep demanding that USA dames be required to sign up with the military draft with severe penalties for failure to do so. Nary a mumble about the less severe criminal sentencing in the courts for females. USA dames are generally spoiled Precious Princesses and unworthy of a civil, law-abiding moral fellow.

  155. Completely agreed. Imagine the situation Europe and America would be in right now if it were not for emotional women.

  156. Women in general lack the intelligence and mind to vote. It is very clear that nations that let premenapause women to have any say will fail. Women post menapause may be given minimal right but there must always be a veto right by a man who supervises them.

  159. It’s hard to get taken seriously when you make dumb factual errors in your second paragraph: Edward was not king in 1900.
    Bad research and writing about a serious and important argument does more harm than good.

  160. I’m an intellegent woman and I agree with this post. People of color should not be allowed to vote in indegeneous white countries either. There is no going back actually. The tiny percent who would fight against the communism to come won’t be enough. I will cry many times over the reality of my future generations under communist rule and white genocide many times before I’m dead I’m sure.

  162. “…women feel that it’s not ‘fair’ to allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits.”
    This attitude has its merits when the woman is dealing with infants, children and invalids incapable of caring for themselves.

  163. “…women feel that it’s not ‘fair’ to allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits.”
    This attitude has its merits when the woman is dealing with infants, children and invalids incapable of caring for themselves.

Comments are closed.