Why Most Women Didn’t Want The Right To Vote

The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

A bit misandrist of the anti-suffragists if you ask me...

A bit misandrist of the anti-suffragists if you ask me…

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

Mental Floss writes [emphasis mine],

Another Massachusetts woman, writing in 1916, expressed concerns on the effect of the suffrage movement on women’s character. Suffragism appeared overtly aggressive to many critics. “It is surely not making them any more lovely, or pleasant in their lives. They grow bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic, liking the excitement of campaigning and finding their natural, proper duties ‘flat, stale, and unprofitable.’”

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Democrat fags

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

Dr. Anna Shaw, President of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association called anti-suffragists the “home, hearth and mother crowd.”  Obviously, she was not interested in any of these identities.  When asked why there was no marriage in heaven, Dr. Shaw brazenly responded, “Because there are no men in heaven.” Like many suffragettes, she felt that men were not necessary and women, banding together could take care of themselves and live happily ever-after in a female-dominated world and after-life.

A declining population rate is not relevant to her ideology, because feminism is all about the desires of the individual. Feminism is an ideology that glorifies selfishness. Don’t try to look attractive for the man in your life. Don’t stay at home investing in your children during their developmental years. Don’t bother learning skills to make a home run efficiently. Don’t be concerned whether your future husband is uncomfortable about the previous men in your life you’ve slept with. Don’t go out of your way to do nice things to serve your husband.


Miserable Ideas

Women were the main supporters of prohibition in America. Once alcohol was outlawed, not only was social life boring, but organized crime flourished.

You can tell a lot about a society by its attitudes towards alcohol. Notice the religious groups that have a strict ban on alcohol—Mormons, Muslims, and most protestant Christians—have the most socially awkward people. They also do some of the most obnoxious moral crusading.

Women are the bulwark of the modern Democratic party. They are the ones who push so hard for our welfare state. Women are also the ones who control the education industry. They are the ones who want to ruin safe schools by bussing in ghetto kids from across town. They are the ones who pushed all that rain forest crap down our throats in the 90s.

Ideological Idolatry

Anarchist and radical feminist Emma Goldman wrote an essay against women’s suffrage. She refers to the suffrage movement as fetish worship, as though it’s something that’s in style but isn’t normal. Her comments on suffragettes’ fascist attitudes sound like they are written against general liberalism today.

Those who have not yet achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this omnipotent diety. Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!

This short essay is actually fairly red pill and goes beyond suffrage. I realize that women are usually bad at philosophy, but once in a while one comes a long that really makes an impression on you (I had a female philosophy professor in college who was absolutely fantastic). I’ll be frank and say that I really enjoyed this essay despite our differences in ideology and the essay’s internal contradictions. There’s several quotable passages I’ll have to skip over.

Daytime Television.

Daytime Television

Goldman talks about how women are followers, whether in a religion or in a social ideology. She makes an interesting argument that most women who want suffrage do so so that they may become more deeply enslaved by the church and state. That sounds crazy until you think about how much today is either illegal, borderline illegal, or such strict social taboo that it might as well be illegal.

Woman’s demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor.

Goldman continues by comparing countries and states that already have suffrage to those without. She mentions Australia’s new complex labor laws that make “strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.” In fairness, she says that this is not necessarily the fault of women’s suffrage but that at least women’s suffrage was not able to help the workers despite claims that women are more compassionate.


Would not bang

After elaborating on a few other examples of how women’s suffrage has not made those societies better, Goldman continues on about the nature of women’s moral philosophy.

Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigoted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be…In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender: it always prohibits…Prostitution and gambling have never done a more flourishing business than since the law has been set against them. […]

I wonder if they understand that it is the very thing which, instead of elevating woman, has made her a political spy, a contemptible pry into the private affairs of people, not so much for the good of the cause, but because, as a Colorado woman said, “they like to get into houses they have never been in, and find out all they can, politically and otherwise.”…For nothing satisfies the craving of most women so much as scandal.

It’s like a prophecy. Which of anything has she said that has not come true? And it is not merely women in politics, but women in journalism in vile gossip publications like Gawker.

For clarification, in Latin and its descendent languages, the word for law is feminine in gender, which I think the line “In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender” is referring to.


We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.


But that is just food for thought. The point in all of the above is that women conventionally were not in favor of women’s rights even when offered them. Feminism did not come like the awaited messiah it’s portrayed as. Instead the feminists just bitched loud enough, took control of academia, and were encourage by sexless men.

Women always take the beliefs of those around them. Better a man who loves her to have the strongest influence over her beliefs and actions than her catty girlfriends who despise her for being more attractive.

Read More: Understanding The Seneca Falls Convention

226 thoughts on “Why Most Women Didn’t Want The Right To Vote”

  1. Good one Blair. If I remember correctly, women’s suffrage got its start out West because women in the boomtowns became wealthy from running whorehouses and bars. If I remember correctly, Women’s suffrage in Utah was actually repealed because Mormon women didn’t vote liberal enough for the progressives.

    1. Woah, I had never read such things. Do you have any reference for that? Thanks

        1. whores dance on the graves of fathers’ sons. even “our boy”, the inspiration of unspeakable loss that unites that piece, attests the same; it’s two words should read “his son”.

      1. I posted a link but if it gets put in spam it’s The Tyranny of Suffrage on socialmatter dot net.

    2. Yup that’s right. Most people either don’t know this or don’t wanna talk about it.


      1. By the time blacks got the vote it was already too late for this country.

      2. The problem with most blacks are black churches which have been taken over by radical black theologists and communists.

    1. Er…50 million children are now dead because of it.
      One of the first things women did when they got the vote was fight for the right to kill their own children (something that the evil patriarchy never allowed).

      1. Man… That’s some real shit right there… I never really looked at it that way.

  3. Problem number 1: women don’t understand economics. It’s not an intellectual failing, but a base compulsion to ignore reality.
    Champagne for everyone forever. Their minds refuse to acknowledge scarcity, opportunity costs etc.
    It’s all a conspiracy by evil white men to deny them their dreams. I’ve known intelligent women to basically believe this.

    1. It’s deeper than that
      Despite frequent denial, women as a whole vote more with their emotions, emphasizing things like compassion, safety, provision, comfort, etc over achievement, competition, supremacy, and the outward expansion of power and wealth – all of which necessitate a degree of meanness
      It’s not a matter of “Her opinion vs His opinion” because the two positions are not equally valid
      In the game of civilization, the male worldview is the winning play

      1. Excellent commentary. The sad and terrible and beautiful thing is that when the facade of civilziation eventually crumbles (as always) there will be no more hiding.
        No more feminist crying… Look at any kind of apolcalyptic scenario real of fictional – Katrina, The Road, whatever… the world becomes a terrible place for women and cries of “we’re equal!” melt like snow before cold declarations of “Prove It.”

        1. Funny you mention The Road- what did the mother do? She gave up, walked into the woods and died. What did the father do? Fought until his dying breath for his son’s survival.
          “My son is the word of God; and, if he is not, then God has never spoken…”
          Has ROK done a piece on red pill authors? No modern writer is more red pill than McCarthy.

        2. I’ve never heard about a civilization that went out in any apocalyptic way..they just get quietly replaced by something new.

        3. Then you haven’t read much at all. How about virtually every civilization in North and South America, post-European contact? Or Rome? Or any of those groups bloodily conquered by the “peaceful” minions of Islam?
          Time for you to move up and away from the comics and graphic novels, Tommy!

        4. Thanks for the history lesson Brainac. Rome didnt go out in a Hollywood acopalytic way. I’m talking about a civilization that, because it fucked itself up, collapsed to the extend that 90% of the population died a violent death or starved to death. Where did that happen ? A country losing a war is not the same.
          And btw, you can learn a lot from Comic books. Better than jerking off to porn all day long, Earlie T

        5. There are several examples. The Minoan civilization is believed to have been utterly destroyed by a volcanic eruption that wiped out most of the population. The Mayan civilization was wiped out (again no absolute proof possible) by climatic change and drought virtually overnight. Several early Neolithic North American Indian cultures were wiped out by huge dust storms in the course of a year or two. These things would count as apocalyptic.

        6. Correct, the same way they rose to power.
          Happens faster nowadays, both the climb, as well as the collapse.

        7. Not to mention the arrival of Europeans with metal armour, firearms, and small pox (aka Guns, Germs and Steel).

        8. Rome went from 2 million people in the city to about 50k in short order at the end

        9. true,but the lack of silver (spanish mines pooped out) created currency shortages which ground down the economy

        10. Myth Rome collapsed after it built a welfare/militarization runned economy much like today

        11. They had superior weapons and brought germs but geography had nothing to do with it or China would be in America’s position

        12. China has its own peculiar geography that divides north and south while sealing it off from the west. QQV Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, and books by Thomas Sowell such as Conquests and Cultures.

        13. No dude if that was the case how as the silk road formed?
          And you never heard of the Song dynasty or Mongolian regimes?
          China was always unified in the state it is right now in fact even surrounding countries have similar languages.

        14. I don’t know about the Silk Road off the top of my head, but China spent a lot of time in a state of disunity, and a lot of that broke along the North-South geographic differences. Even the example you give makes my point. The Mongols were able to sweep across the plains in the north but it took them decades to finish off the Song Dynasty in the south with its rougher terrain. Diamond’s point regarding China is that it was far more unified than Europe and the Near East.
          Competitive forces among the various smaller kingdoms in the west drove technological advances at a far greater pace than in China. Every technological advancement in China – gunpowder, printing, engineering, heck even noodles – went into overdrive once the Europeans got a hold of them.
          The more general point made by Diamond is that the geography of Eurasia was more amenable to the development of guns, germs and steel than Africa or the Americas. Eurasia has the majority of animals and crops that can be domesticated and its east-west orientation allowed for the exchange of movement of goods, people and technology in a way that didn’t and couldn’t happen in in Africa or the Americas.
          Sowell also emphasizes the supreme importance of geography in explaining England’s dominance with the rise of the Industrial Revolution: coal mines located near waterways connected to cities. And so it goes on once the Europeans arrived in North America: The St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi facilitated travel, trade and economic development in a way that couldn’t be done on the Amazon or in Africa.

        15. No China was and still is geographically divided. They had to build constructions around mountains. And mind you the Mongolians were HORSE experts so steppes weren’t a problem for them.
          What you also forget to mention is that China was much more advanced than Europe before Rome came into existence. Warning I didn’t even mention Rome lol

      2. Yes indeed, the stifling horror of “security”. This is why you have laws that punish you because of stuff that might happen. Driving 30 mph in a 20 mph zone? You get a ticket. Who was hurt? Nobody except you.
        This is the new arbitrary vision of crime, which no longer requires a victim and malicious intent.

    2. Problem number 2: women have been utterly dependent on freebies from men for their entire history, so when given government influence, their priorities tend towards what they know best

    3. Much like a child who is bought expensive toys weekly and has no conception of the exertion involved in acquisition of said toys, a woman that is showered with gifts expects not only he norm, but has no appreciation of the labour required to produce it. And since it is in female nature to seek the most provision, she will continually desire more and more until her desire is for more than all of the champagne in existence.
      I’m not sure even a god could help beta-providers who self-assign the task of providing for these insatiable abominations.

    4. exactly. you hear shit like ” just give everyone 100k” all the time. just absolutely 0 comprehension of reality (or basic inflation).
      I think it’s just apathy. as time progresses, issues get more complicated and larger in number, so less people will be truly informed about the candidates. as a result of this you see increasing amounts of people voting on race , gender, college affiliation, etc
      just a natural progression for the downfall of modern world.

    5. Women hate to let facts get in the way of their argument. I used to have this argument all the time. “But why we can’t give free stuff to everyone?” “Because dear, nothing is free.” “I don’t care! I want it!”.

      1. It’s not about free stuff (which is only a tiny part of spending). It’s about not crashing the world economy. Vote Hillary.

    6. This is a beautiful piece of truth cake. As we all know contrary to “popular” belief we as a species would have died long ago if it were not for the men . The women have followed us in populating this planet and caring for the kids (which is fair if you ask me). But these days women have practically sacrificed there very nature to transverse into ours which is by definition gender queer. They want the praise for doing the same things men already do. That’s not how it works sweety. Cause sure you can do it but no one will truly care cause your version is diluted in comparison and NO ONE wants to see a weak version of something that they KNOW can be stronger.

    7. Hello idiot. Women do indeed understand economics if they have studied it. No different from a man. Yes, they understand money. And, if you had done any studying of your own, you would know that the economy is better under Democrats than Republicans, and deficits are smaller. Obama is an exception because Bush left him the largest financial crisis of our lifetimes. Why are the Koch brothers voting Democrat this year? Why is Wall Street voting Democrat this year? Because Hillary knows what she’s doing, and is a centrist, while Trump has no clue.

  4. The “would not bag” picture, is that authentic from the time (1920’s or so)? Damn, even back then it was realized that feminists were ugly shrill people, generally, if this is authentic.
    A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to
    involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general,
    and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had
    created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her
    political views.

    And in what way would this be bad? What, she wanted to stop welfare? Or have everybody arm themselves? Or get rid of taxes? What particular American right wing thing can be used to magnify cruelty and hatred precisely? Serious question, I’m genuinely curious.

    1. Limbaugh is the gateway drug to Hannity and O’Reilly. Get that trifecta too deep in the head and you become pro police state (fear driven). Notice that none of the clear channel or Fox “products” even speak towards real liberty. It’s always police/soldier worship, America can do no wrong, etc.
      This is why CNN on the left has people being lefty douchebags spouting “social contract” as we have to deal with horrors we never signed into any contract for, and Fox on the right has given us an equal horde of smug statists spouting “rule of law!” without any mention of the validity of the law (just obey the cop or die).
      Left wing socialist tyranny versus right wing nationalist tyranny. Left boot on the neck or right boot? Take your pick.
      If the husband was a leftist, then his wife would have been a leftist but equally a monster.

      1. Given as I’m a libertarian, you’re preaching to the choir in most of your post.
        That said, I generally consider libertarianism “extreme” right wing ism in its own right. Once you get government small enough and Constitutional you basically enable libertarianism as the default.
        If by right wing he meant, as you say, nationalistic police state stuff, ok, that’s fine. It’s why I asked actually, many people hold variations and shades of gray definitions when it comes to right and left wing.

        1. The problem is the rigid dogmatism that is prevalent on both sides of the fence. The whole left/right dichotomy is bullshit in my opinion because it divides people and basically hands control over to totalitarian “progressives” since there is no one left to oppose them thanks to petty infighting. Both “wings” have good ideas and bad ones and im referring to more classical left wingers (libertarians) not the aberrations we have today. What we need to do is transcend that bullshit dichotomy and form a unified front against modern libs/cultural marxists/progressives/whatever the fuck you want to call them.

        2. Left/Right are basically meaningless, which is why I asked the author for examples of what he was doing. It could be anything really.
          There is a sliding scale, and on one end if totalitarianism and on the other is freedom. Any other measure is meaningless.

        3. Although paradoxically speaking, we may need to implement totalitarian measures to achieve a society that respects freedoms once again. We can’t destroy radical leftism unless we prevent radical leftists from mobilizing or speaking.

        4. Look man, in the interim where violent anarchy reigns between the two periods….I zee nooothink! Noooothink!
          But after order is restored? Well, I suspect the problem will no longer exist.

        5. You’re in Toronto right?
          I remember asking people during the Ford elections why they thought Ford was so bad and all people could say was “He is an embarrassment to Toronto!”
          When I then asked them about specific policies they disagreed with no one could ever give me an answer save for one engineering friend of mine who understands the concept of debate.
          John Tory has only been in office for a few months and property taxes have already gone up. Sure Ford was a fat fuck who had a drug problem, but it seemed like he at least learned how to count numbers.
          I’m not pro-Ford necessarily. I’m just anti-stupidity and practically everyone was so vehemently against Ford without being able to bring up one political issue. It really just seemed like they didn’t want an unattractive but successful white businessman in office.

        6. Over at Breitbart I’m seeing women post against Rand Paul because “he’s short”.
          I shit you not.
          Not “I disagree with XYZ”. Not “Well, his ideology and mine are different”. Nope. “He’s short”.
          I had no idea how tall (or not) he was until today. They knew though, and it will keep them from voting for him.
          This is the price we pay for letting women vote.

        7. Yeah, the whole Ford thing really pisses me off. Yes, he abused narcotics and he was a little unrefined at times but who the fuck cares as long as his policies were sound. Last time I checked, Ford was the only guy who genuinely wanted to improve conditions in the city and fix the plethora of problems that are currently plaguing this place. The fact that people hounded him relentlessly for not wanting to go to the Faggot Pride Parade speaks volumes about the mindset of people that inhabit this fucking swamp. The Wynne election was history repeating itself once again. Hudak was an idiot and he shouldent have blurted out that he was going to cut jobs because in this city, that’s analogous to bleeding yourself and jumping into a pool of sharks. However, what he said made more sense than the leftist garbage that was being spewed out by Commissar Wynne. We really do have too many useless public/civil sector jobs in this city that don’t need to exist. On my commute home I always see these worthless TTC toll collectors that just sit there and do jackshit. I evade paying fares all the time because they can’t even be assed to do something as simple as monitor people who come through the turnstiles. Fuck I hate this city.

        8. Well sure, of course they do, he’s what plants crave!

        9. I have to say looking back, and from down here in the USA, Mr. Ford was a gem among politicians. When he was asked point blank about using drugs and he just said “Yes” it was the first time I ever heard any politician give a candid, succinct and to-the-point answer to a question.

        10. With all due respect to President Camacho, at least he was smart enough to know that he couldn’t fix the problems in the USA, and found another guy who could.
          That is a very wise leader.

        11. Gerald Ford, who was a bad president, and pardoned the criminal Richard Nixon, was also at least honest. He is the only president I know who told the truth by saying at the annual state of the union address that “The state of the union is bad”. Every other speech since has been nothing but cheerleading and lies.

        12. I don’t think they’re talking about the same Ford that you are, brother, heh.

        13. Water? You mean like in the toilet?

        14. Heh.. yeah sorry figured that out later… I did not make that clear in the post… Just so rare to hear a politico speak truth.

        15. I can tell you a lot of good things about Ford.
          He fucked up by breaking the law with his drug use but he had some solid and simple ideas to improve the city.

        16. This is why the two dimensional political spectrum was invented. There is the left/right axis, but also an authoritarian/anti-authoritarian axis.
          While there are certainly right authoritarians (the conservative law and order types), as well as left anti-authoritarians (the leave me alone until I request a safety net types), the main spectrum of political thought is a diagonal line running from authoritarian left to anti-authoritarian right.
          The nationalist police states actually tend to inhabit the authoritarian left corner. I won’t name names, we all know what they are.
          The issue is confused because those at the extremes of the normal (in the mathematical sense) axis cast their rhetoric as if the authoritarian axis were the reverse of what it actually is, with the left accusing the right of being totalitarian and the right accusing the left of being a bunch of anarchists.

        17. Never vote for candidate whose middle name is “Mountain Dew”.

        18. And on his deathbed he admitted the warren commission findings were a joke…

        19. Recall, Van Buren, Buchanan and Cleveland (others?) were all single men, when they were voted into the President’s office. That would NEVER happen today. A candidate must now endlessly parade around his wife and kids to show every woman that he’s a “family man” who will make the “proper” decisions affecting women and their children.
          Ideas be damned. Feelings rule.

        20. I was going to post the Bill Maher bit on “I fuck my wife!” re: politicians but apparently naughty words make youtube cry.
          Basically a skit about how we have to watch gross politicians kiss their wives publicly just to prove they are fucking a wife and get the women and “family values” vote.

        21. I have noticed this while watching political shows with women.
          “What is with the part in Hannity’s hair?” “What the hell kind of suit is Levin wearing, especially with that ugly tie?” “Hillary/Fiorina has done so much work, relax with the botox before you go on TV”
          Then goes the obsessive gossip on the pool of potential first ladies.
          That being said, I still make observations on how good looking a presidential candidate is. Like it or not, it’s a pretty big factor in electability and I don’t think Cruz can win an election because he is noticeably ugly compared to Paul or Rubio.

        22. I just mentioned to GOJ that the only way to handle it is to have a good looking and well spoken president. It’s always worked that way in the age of mass media.

      2. Those guys are entertainers that push bullshit extremists views and pose as the voice of conservatism. They are anything but. I’d consider them well placed stooges that are agent provocateurs for the left. The media frames the dialog within a well placed sandbox. People that see the encroachment of bullshit cultural marxists get aligned to what they think are people that speak for them and get pushed further into bizarre world. They paint an easy target for the left.
        The extremes of the right and left give each other reach arounds.

      3. “I don’t like mainstream news. I listen to Fox!” On Lord, gotta love the people who say that.

      4. Yep. And I heard that Fox cancelled the Andrew Napolitano program, that was an internet only show that they were trying out as a test. Well it had a rational, libertarian message, and ended up getting better ratings than their actual broadcasts and they canned it. Phil Donahue was the same way, got great ratings but the powers that be didn’t like his content, so they fired him.
        Mainstream TV news ratings today are so abysmally low, which is why you end up with idiots like O’Reilly and Hannity hosting shows. And yes, they make you paranoid about everything. I have seen it happen to one guy I used to work with who retired, and now sits at home and watches Fox all day and thinks we need nuclear war with about a dozen countries and that everyone is out for him.

      5. I agree that Fox supports the police more than I would prefer, but at least they are doing it at the behest of the SJW’s. Most of the news is whitewashed but I have seen/heard a lot of red pill attitudes on the editorial type shows like “the Five” and “Red Eye”. Not to mention they are usually comical and the broads pass my discerning boner tests.

  5. Truly interesting and enjoyable article, but at the end you mentioned that “Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned.” That is not entirely true, Jesus spoke much of tolerating others no matter their “sins”, that we are all equal under the one true God. Granted, it is utopian but the guy had his heart in the right place.
    What is the solution for this problem gents? What can we do about the feminist, and FGT dominance over every aspect of our society, our government, our lives? This madness must end before it’s too late, and I don’t think exposing it through the internet will cut it, though it is a good first step.

    1. “That is not entirely true, Jesus spoke much of tolerating others no
      matter their ‘sins’, that we are all equal under the one true God.”
      Yes, the Lord Jesus demanded that everyone repent of their sins, accept Him as God incarnate, or be damned for eternity. Modern “toleration” of women as equals to men (other than in their need for God), sodomy as normal, and the like, do not follow from that.

      1. Jesus never claimed to be god incarnate, simply the son of god, like every single one of us. He even said “and greater things than me you shall achieve” referring to the rest of humanity. That god incarnate is religious propaganda bs. True though that he didn’t mention tolerance to sodomy, and man/female equality is a myth as well, we are fundamentally different in many aspects.

  6. Feminism has survived because it has been bred and taught to more and more men and women over the last century. Islam has done the same thing by encouraging each family to reproduce nearly 10 kids in every family; a subtle take over that takes time to implement, but by the time we realise it would be ultimately too late. So we should combat them in the same way; less rights, monitored behaviour and retraining.

    1. Just as compounding interest has amazingly huge returns over long periods of time, negative “interest” applied to enemies over long periods produces huge returns for oneself. Socialism’s end result is the able and givers sacrificing themselves and children to the disabled and takers. Everywhere that principle is applied, the end result is known beforehand, because it’s inevitable. It’s built-in. Marx’s “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is fundamentally opposed to the very mechanism of natural selection that resulted in increasingly complex life forms evolving from simpler. Marxism is anti-nature, but nature to be mastered must be obeyed. Health does not come from punishing health. Eradicating poverty does not happen by enabling and rewarding those who have children while in poverty. Feminism is intrinsically socialist, and for that reason alone must be opposed. A given civilization is created by letting the best reap the rewards of their labor and risk, and by suppressing violence and involuntary transfers of wealth (theft, fraud). A civilization is destroyed by changing any of those features. Socialism destroys civilization. It’s the mirror opposite of compounding positive interest.

  7. And now that the tables have turned women are breeding with complete retards (thus popping out retarded babies). Not good for society.

  8. Excellent essay.
    Bottom line: Women favor security over liberty.
    Ben Franklin on that very topic said ”
    “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
    And if that’s now where we are today then I’m a monkey’s uncle.
    Thanks Ladies, for your prohibitive and safety at all costs mindset.
    WE can thank them for prohibition, the drug war, and the inumerable traffic regulations like seatbelts, airbags, anti lock brakes, side impact beams, mandatory bicycle helmets et al.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with those things, but IMO we should have a choice, not be forced by men with guns to obey these feminine diktats.

    1. There’s plenty wrong with prohibition and the drug war actually.
      Otherwise, agreed.

      1. You’re right. I’m against prohibition. Should’ve worded that better.
        I’m for Rightful Liberty.

  9. I thoroughly enjoyed the read.
    Question: who is to blame for the education system in the states being dumbed down? Feminists or Zionists? Until reading this article I hadn’t thought about how Feminism could have had a hand in our education systems’ slow destruction. If Yuri Bezmenov were here though, he’d say the Soviets are to blame for installing their Psychological Warfare model in US Colleges in the early 1960s.

  10. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote simply because they are incapable of objective reasoning and the application of logic in political issues and laws which requires a detachment to emotion. Women are too emotional to be allowed in anything political.

    1. It also divides the nuclear family, the most basic component of society, which destabilizes the whole of society as an effect. Just as we can see by looking out the window.
      One household, one vote.

      1. “Destroy the family and you destroy society”
        -Vlad Lenin
        Family defines continuity. Enough families taken together form a
        community. The common culture of the community is a multi-generational
        heritage that shapes the identities of their children. Take
        away the family and you have rootless individuals looking for tribes to
        affiliate with, clumping in artificial groups based on some common
        characteristic and economic interest.

        1. ^^right. Intact families don’t need much govt hence Dems/Libs strategy for destroying them

        2. Both of these nations have adopted their own brand of statism and have managed, if in a somewhat different fashion, managed to create serious problems for their respective population. Destroying familial cohesiveness and implementing politico-economic ideas (largely related to either Marx or Keynes in varying degrees) that are contrary to liberty have always led to political, economic, and often even familial dissolution.
          The US education system has become hijacked by special interest groups that are less interested in educating individuals, instead preferring to indoctrinate them with their respective political ideology, which at the present time is almost exclusively leftist in flavor. This is a symptom of the massive expansion of government into virtually all aspects of American life.

        3. Whoops ha, That tiny flag looks like the Chinese, but you are right it’s not, I thought those were the golden stars not the sickle and hammer.

    2. Not only that but they would rather follow the herd as opposed to formulating their own opinions. Ive been able to flip girls ive spoken to back and forth between my own far right views and leftist ones simply by spamming argumentum ad populums or other argumentative fallacies. I shouldn’t even have to explain how dangerous people like that are.

    3. Some women are logical, such as Marilyn vos Savant or Janet Bloomfield. Voting was originally for only people who paid taxes, which was landowners. The introduction of universal male suffrage was the problem. As we now know, more males than females have very low IQ (bell curve distribution), but also very high IQ. So suppression of the lower IQ male population was critical as well (a society where only men could vote gave women the right to vote, remember). Voters should be as rare as taxpayers (one and the same). With the expansion of taxation, so too does the argument for letting whoever pays taxes to vote.

      1. Male land owners only, in my estimation. And real ownership, not having title to one square inch which is how I suspect socialists would try to bypass this requirement.

        1. I’d make it only “free and clear” landowners. You can always make someone an “owner” by giving them 99% mortgages with 1% down.
          It would postpone voting until most men were in their 30s at least, but would be well worth it, and would show that the voter is economically rational, and able to diligently pay off his obligations, before he selects others to manage the obligations of society.

        2. Good ideas. Back in the olden days, it was assumed men would take the requirement at face value and act honorably. These days you have to absolutely anticipate bad people trying to subvert any system you set up.
          Also forgot to include “minimum age of 25”. Stupid impressionable idealistic college students do some real damage when they vote, which once they mature, usually come to regret. But by then, the damage is done. I’d eliminate that right out of the gate.

        3. Are you familiar with Heinlein? He proposed a system where only retired veterans could vote. The idea being that only those with a lifetime of sacrifice had proven themselves able to make selfless decisions.

        4. Starship Troopers. Required reading in my circles when I was a teen.

        5. No more than 235,000 votes in the last presidential election were cast by 18-24 year olds, which was a record high. In the last election, the tallies were roughly 66 million versus 61 million.
          It’s anecdotally easy to look at “Kids today” and see them as degenerate, but they really don’t make a difference in the voting booth. Plus occasionally, they have a new or creative way of looking at something, so it’s good to not write them off completely. Besides, you’re typically only 18-24 for approximately 1 presidential election.

        6. Not all veterans served for their adult lives. When everyone was expected to be a part of the militia for life, I think it made sense to tie service to the right to vote. But besides the fact that the military no longer wants oodles of raw recruits to train, in the service of a modern military, remember that there are many people in the military now who will never go anywhere near a combat zone, and who enjoy the military as one might enjoy serving an any other part of the Federal bureaucracy.

        7. A lot of foreigners have been gobbling up land in nyc- I dont think Russian or Chinese nationals should be able to vote…

        8. Stumbled across that in a bookstore recently- its a massive book.

        9. Exactly we Need Men who have experience in how things work to vote, not hipsters fresh out of college polluted with marxist ideas and no real world experience.

        10. I think only veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice should be allowed to vote.

        11. There’s something to be said for Starship Troopers’ setup where citizenship and voting privileges were gained through military service. Since rights only exist when they are defended, defense of property is the only way private property exists (rather than words on a piece of paper). Education of how to defend property should therefore be a critical prerequisite of any voting power. The objective is to match liability with power. Those who hold no liability (payment of taxes, defense of property) should have zero power over the spending of taxes or issues of property. This is partly why (I think) women were treated as property in the past or not allowed to own property, because ultimately property is only preserved by those who can defend it, and the strength difference between the sexes meant women can’t adequately protect it. Giving something to your daughter instead of son meant it will possibly be lost or stolen (unless a man protected it for her).

        12. Not just military, also the civil service vets as well. But this ignore the question of how they manage their businesses and of public corruption. Lottery would work better with important issues subject to vote such as war with the yes voters being induced immediately and the no voters not induced on the theory that the cooler heads would keep the focus tight and avoid the mission creep.

      2. That’s a good point to remember. It was the overall acceptance of equality “of men” which began the move towards what we have. Perhaps in England to some extent with the Reform of 1832, but perhaps more fully so with the Reform Act of 1867, that gave the vote to all male heads of households. What we can see now is that equality, once embraced, has no logical limiting point. It has an overall leveling effect, over people, ideas, cultures, etc. In the recent Scottish Independence Referrendum, they allowed 16 year-olds to vote. One can only see the limitations going lower still.

        1. If mankind had learned the lesson of Adam and Eve, we would not have this.
          Men are supposed to rule over their families, and that includes the wife.

      3. Just stop you mangina fanboy. Those women do nothing other than parrot the words and ideas spoon fed to them from Men. The lowest rungs of men on the intelligence quotient spectrum suprpass all women with even the highest of IQ scores because the aptitudes of men are the only ones with any societal equity. The only forms of intelligence that exist within women are verbal apptitudes (i.e. men are thinkers and doers and women are gossipy verbose shitstains). Fuck dude you are an ignoramus.

        1. The point about the basic differences (females mostly verbal aptitude vs. male mostly mechanical, and therefore tangibly useful) is mostly true. The occupations required to produce civilization are almost all male (electric line workers, oil drillers, security, construction). However, the vast majority of violent crime is also male, and it’s simply a fact of IQ tests (pattern recognition) that very low IQ males outnumber very low IQ females. Not all men are MEN, which is why the founders restricted voting to only those who owned land and paid taxes (the consequence of being higher IQ or ability MEN). So, yeah, like totally, dude. I consider myself anarcho-capitalist anyway (with strong sympathy towards monarchism since it has a better track record, as we’re seeing in the past 100 years of unbridled democracy throughout the world).

    4. No one should be allowed to cast a “vote” to transfer someone else’s resources to themselves.

    5. In the Classical Athens, there were NO elections to the public offices. Except for the generalship. 50 men from each of the ten tribes were chosen by the lots for one year. They can be drawn again but are term-limited at two years. Even then, not all men have the vote, only the head of the household vote. A man with a family and property have a say, not a man who is single or propertyless. This system was designed to limit corruption and factionalism by the rich men and to limit abuse of power by the officials. This is one reason why I don’t consider America to be a democracy but it have nothing in common with Athens.

  11. Not to go all contrarian on you, but a truly self-interested woman would be taking care of the kids and her man, seeing how we all know that makes broads happier.

    1. Yes, exactly. I thought similarly when I saw him go off on “selfish”.
      The ultimate form of selfishness is having, raising and guarding your children so that YOUR DNA continues where others do not.
      I think he was using the leftist version of “selfish” which is “mean and icky”.

  12. Women strongly identify with government. The government is female. Today’s female wants the government to parent everyone “for their own good.” The government wants to parent you. They’d love nothing more than to extend childhood because it gives them more control.
    The government, like a woman, will ask for more power and abuse it. If you let them. When women started gaining ground via the suffragette movement and the right to vote, the government starting becoming more feminized. A woman eavesdrops and gossips. So does our government. Everyone becomes a threat.
    They want to shelter you without regarding your rights. A woman won’t let little Timmy touch the stove because he might get hurt. The father will, because he understands Timmy only needs to do it once. He learns.

    1. It is sad how much things have gotten worst. The government over here in
      Australia keep rising smoking and alcohol taxes. Even going so far to
      make all cigarettes come in plain green boxes and forcing companies to put labels saying it will
      kill you. We are not
      Children and should have the right to make choices whether it be good,
      neutral or bad but their are people in (Mother) government who enjoy
      controlling people lives and telling them what you can and can’t do and
      if you disobey you will be punish.

  13. I recall the scene in “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury where the women prattle on about how one candidate looked unkempt but the other was handsome. Nothing about what either candidate was saying, just their appearances.

    1. The bottom line is that politics doesn’t affect women. They have no skin in the game.
      Even if the country turns to shit, the men will just white-knight even harder to protect her.
      If the country gets invaded, she just scored a tonne of foreign cock.
      Politics is of no real concern to women.

      1. I guess you are right, because women will just be on the winners side. So in fact, they will always secretly root for the strongest to win, even during a Russian invasion. It’s in their own genetic interest.
        So who cares about politics ? There will always be someone who is “strongest” that she can mate with. That makes perfect sense.

        1. There were also plenty of female collaborators when France was occupied by the Germans.

    2. In every US presidential election so far, save one, THE TALLER CANDIDATE WON.
      Think about that for a minute.

  14. The Scripture, as a rule, always has the woman placed in and
    about the business of the home. Nature itself teaches us this should be the norm. They are never encouraged to be about public affairs or politics. And when they are disaster naturally follows. Note, too, those who get carried away by old wives tales, busy bodies, and other such descriptors found in the Bible refer to one gender – can you guess which?
    You’ll notice in otherwise intelligent men the eyes glossing over when you ask them if you believe women’s and/or universal suffrage is a good thing or not. If you say ‘yes’ you might as well be gay in my book. And I will have to conclude that the man who says ‘yes’ very rarely can be found to have actually studied the question and came to his own conclusion.
    Good article.

  15. On point article. And even with all of the above, the really despicable thing is that for most women, their vote comes down to one thing – abortion rights. Now look, I’m not against abortion in cases of rape (the real kind) or incest, and I’m willing to grant rights to certain early term abortions that are necessary to protect a mother’s health. But I find the modern woman’s notion of abortion as just another form of convenient birth control because she’s too fucking lazy to use one of the dozens of other methods available sickening.
    At base, these women are happy to henpeck you about everything under the sun that they would prefer the state to force you to do to satisfy her arbitrary and shifting feelings of fairness. But the most cherished and jealously defended advantage suffrage allows, and the one that virtually all female votes are largely based on, is the right to kill a developing fetus that she was – 999 times out of 1,000 – more than happy to spread her legs and create. Even more revolting, the current trend is to normalize infanticide, where a child, that has been born, can subsequently be killed for inconveniencing mom under the theory that infants and toddlers are not fully developed humans and so should not posses the same rights as the rest of us. Funny how that never seems to square with the feminist obsession over children’s rights in education and abuse contexts. But never mind all that, didn’t you hear that the as yet unknown Republican candidate is waging a war on women!! Get out and vote!!!

    1. I could go on a rage filled rant about killing fetuses for no reason but I wont. Ill let this image speak for itself.

        1. I’d taxpayer fund every one of these possible.. saves probably a half a million a piece.

        2. Healthy, attractive, intelligent people are increasingly choosing to have no children, so we need both solutions: encourage or fund the lowered reproduction of the undesired, and encourage the higher reproduction of the desired.

        3. “Healthy, attractive, intelligent people are increasingly choosing to have no children”
          It’s the educated women who don’t want to have any, and prefer to go down the carousel/career/cats path. Educated men aren’t shunning reproduction.

        4. Indeed. My next door neighbor, a professional corporate pilot, has 4 kids already and wants more. His wife is a SAHM in the true sense, and very feminine. We desperately need more people like that popping out kids.
          But corporate Grrrll Pwrrrrr! women won’t.

        5. It’s called Eugenics, and a hundred years ago, it was considered common sense.
          Thing about common sense, it’s just not that common. In fact, these days it’s so rare it’s practically a superpower.

      1. This is why I’m fine with govt funding for abortions. One abortion for free. Next one, you get permanently sterilized. I’ll pay.
        We start sterilizing garbage like this, society will clean up in a generation or two.

    2. you cannot straddle a line and expect to reason with leftists… anything that is not explicitly against them eventually becomes for them.
      You cannot say “I am against abortion but…” because that is compromise, and compromise always loses to leftists.
      You are either for vacuuming babies or against it. There IS no middle ground, middle ground means you support it.

      1. My problem with what you say is that it starts from a false choice between two extremes. To take your logic to its conclusion, I would have to be fine with some thug breaking into my house, raping my wife, impregnating her, and then having the state forcibly cuckold me into raising the bastard offspring. Similarly, I would have to be fine with some degenerate breeding a mongoloid army with his daughter and having the state force me to support them at gunpoint by confiscating my hard earned cash to keep them alive on the welfare rolls. Because both of those options in a world of absolute prohibition for abortion.
        I prefer a more reasonable starting point. I take your point that compromising with leftists is a fool’s errand because they simply shift the goal posts. I agree. But nothing says I have to give an inch just because I start from a reasonable position. If anything, it is the fact that I start from a reasonable position that allows me to remain steadfast in my determination not to budge an inch.

        1. It’s not a matter of being fine with it, It’s a matter of the ever-leftward drift of compromise.
          The problem with the thug and your wife and the mongoloid army is exactly the same one… being forced to support a child that has no connection to you. It’s a matter of being forced by the state, not a matter of whether a child deserves to live.
          Like I said though, when it comes to the left, if you ever seek a hint of compromise, you give yourself to them, body and soul. You give them an inch and they take your life. I know it sucks that you are forced to behave ‘unreasonably’, but that’s the basic reality… if you compromise, even slightly, they have ‘won’ and will push the compromise farther than you imagined possible. If you make an exception, that exception becomes the rule.

    1. Not exactly the oppressive days of yore feminists keep going on about.

  16. I remember arguing with some faggot hippie SJW in front of his hairy, dope smoking, short haired feminist friend. I recall this little beaten dog telling me that not being some feminist faggot hippie is the same as being a racist. I recall telling him “Good for you. Say whatever you need to in front of Pat over there so you can get laid for the first time this year (this was true).”
    Portland’s finest…

    1. If you had been so inclined, you probably could have stolen his hippie gf right there without any resistance.

      1. And then what, gone 50 feet before tossing the little orangutan out of the car?

      1. Do they have to have public apologies for making a joke which makes a lot of people laugh but makes a few “triggered”? Don’t they openly refer to blacks as monkeys in EU? There is a long list of people who have been persecuted for saying something that’s not PC. I haven’t lived in Europe but my experience visiting is that people are more calm and don’t get bent out of shape if someone says something they don’t agree with. Have you ever had one politician attack another because he’s not wearing his “flag pin”, lest he forget which country he is representing?

        1. If you mention that a murderous rape gang is ‘muslim’ you go to jail.
          That seems pretty damned thin skinned to me.

  17. Does the men’s rights movement have any organizational structure or plan for realizing it goals? Does it have any goals at all? Every time I get on this site there are another 742 articles on the hypocrisy and tyranny of feminism; and a bunch of comments. Yeah, we all agree: feminism sucks balls.
    The question, invariably ignored, is “what the fuck are we going to do about it?” Do “kings” really sit in front of their computer positing new theories, shaming their feminist enemies, waiting for the endorsement of their chums?
    Isn’t it about time we came up with a plan? Otherwise, this is all for nothing: the last protestations of those that will inevitably be labeled as oppressors.

    1. patience: there’s a new zeitgeist in the making, but first seeds must scatter in the wind.

    2. Patience. fight where you can, ridicule and dox as you can, but patience is neccessary, there’s something big in the making, and it’s gonna be good!
      Buy yourself a firearm.

      1. And does this gun only come with one bullet? Not that I’d advocate suicide to get away from the current situation.

        1. Of course not, There’s lots of people that need killing, and hopefully you are not among them.

        2. Goodness, Brigadon, I didn’t realize you cared so much for my well-being. If I were capable, I’m sure I’d blush something fierce.
          The idea of committing homicide to further a philosophy is a bit much to ask fellow Red Pillers, isn’t it? Can’t you manage some type of bloodless coup instead? Bullets and bloodshed create such a mess, and I don’t want to hear the women griping about cleaning up afterwards.

        3. Would you commit murder to further the philosophy that your wife should be protected from rape? That your children have the right to grow up instead of being sold into slavery? Would you commit murder to protect the idea that you have the right to personal property?
          I know you were being facetious, But knowing what is worth killing for and what is worth dying for is the first step in being ‘red pill’. It is the first truth you have to understand before you can start on the journey to find reality above all other things. Anyone that claims to be ‘red pill’ without introspectively deciding, for themselves, what is worth killing for and what is worth dying for is, like liberals, simply another useful idiot… albeit an idiot tuned into better and more logical propaganda.

    3. “what the fuck are we going to do about it?”
      We do nothing as far as I know. Not one thing. And let us not forget, we are where we are because men dropped the ball, or should I say dropped their balls? I am really depressed about it all. I don’t see one man out there trying to do something about this (somebody with a voice/platform I mean), except for the usual bitching. I would expect Roosh to get out from where he is, come back here and start leading the fight, but again I don’t think that’s going to happen… Anyway, end rant.. bitching.

  18. On a radio show today they interviewed a lady promoting the 30% Club who’s mission statement wants FTSE quoted companies to have 30% CEO’s women. Not engineers, programmers, construction workers, steeple jacks or any other career that needs brains or brawn. No they’re going straight for the high paying, high powered desk job with the Birkin handbag at €10,000 a pop. 93% of fatalities in the workplace are men. Good view from behind a FTSE 100 CEO’s desk I would imagine…….

    1. exactly the same as marrying and divorcing a billionaire. Its just about the cream

    2. You know that ANY female CEO is not doing it alone, not by a long shot. Behind every great woman CEO is a man advising her every single step of the way. If any woman was truly at the helm of any large company, not only would it eventually go bankrupt but it would literally go down in flames and explosions. NO woman is competent enough.

      1. The best female CEOs are capable of managing companies diligently into steady declines.
        If I wanted a successful operation winding down over a few year period (for some reason), I’d appoint a “good” female CEO

        1. From personal experience, female CEO’s fall under two teams, fairly rational women with an idea guaranteed to sink in a few years due to collapsing on itself or those that stick around through tenacity but never gain much in revenue or ground. It is much better for a woman to be an entertainer or career woman than it is to be a business owner.

    3. Well, we can only hope they do it. It will open the way for younger, hungrier, all male companies to take over the carcasses of the older corporations that go along with that crap.

  19. The United States is a White MALE phenomenon. In addition to not knowing shit about economics, history, human nature, current events, policy both foreign and domestic, and other cultures, women DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS.

    1. I don’t think this is entirely correct. I believe that there are quite a few women who know what the United States is – and they hate it with a burning passion.

      1. They’re trying to make America into a European style social democracy.
        Problem is, that system is stretched beyond its limit and barely even works in Europe with comparatively tiny nations. To try replicate the method in a country as vast and diverse as the US is fucking suicide.
        It can’t possibly work.

        1. The Europeans have ze Germans. We don’t, so it’s never gonna work as you said.

        2. imagine life in Europe… my country has passed over half a million unemployed and yet our government pays for “commercials” to import poor, oppressed immigrants from the third world. I don’t think they want to live in third world Euro version either. lmao

        3. I feel so bad for Germans. Everyone and their mother is riding their back these days. Gross. I am boycotting Greece for holidays and their whining about WW II suddenly when they’ve already gotten reparations. Vultures the lot of them.

        4. With the creation and proliferation of socialism and other forms of statism, parasitism has become the order of the day. Worse, Western nation’s rather strange fetish for creating multicultural nations has only managed to create internal friction while further ballooning their respective welfare states.

  20. “As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.””
    Although it pains me to do so, I will have to disagree with Mr. Mencken on this point.
    A misogynist is a man who hates women almost as much as women hate each other.

  21. yeah it’s not a good idea to allow a group of people primarily ruled by their feelings/passions to participate in politics

  22. Women are stupid but man are more for letting them do wherever they want let’s take the leashed back

  23. No major civilization has embraced tolerance and equality as the absolute Western values seen today. Because anyone with significant life experience knows those things are not virtues. Moralmongering is a symptom of an overfed and out of touch society
    Sometimes you need equality, sometimes you don’t
    Some things you tolerate, some things you don’t
    And it’s not only when something “isn’t nice”

    1. Tolerance is now merely a code word for accepting mass immigration and sexual perversion.
      The ones who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of others’ opinions. Tolerance used to mean patience and self-restraint.

  24. I am a fan of ROK but this article is crap. It is one thing to make the point that history is more complex than the revisionist feminists would have us believe.
    It is another thing to imply that the vote should never have been given to women

    1. It is easy to disqualify a position as “crap.” It is rather more difficult to refute it.
      Write an article supporting universal suffrage. Your oppositional point of view will not be this article, but the articles of the men who originally decided that universal suffrage would lead to the end of the republican experiment.
      You will also need to demonstrate that they have not been proven correct.
      If you cannot do so, your opinion will have been proven to be crap.

    2. It’s not ‘implication’, dipshit, it’s a flat out statement.
      Women should never have been given the right to vote, any more than dogs, children, criminals, or the retarded, for exactly the same reasons.
      Hell, even most men shouldn’t have that right. Universal suffrage marked the end of the republic and the beginning of the democracy.
      The only people that deserve the privilege of voting are the men who have some skin in the game… The soldier and the landowner. Those who risk their property and those who risk their lives. Everyone else is a leech on voting.

  25. New information, interesting analysis. Thanks for writing! Worth the read.

  26. Definitely we are substantially less-intelligent than 100 years ago. I think that the leftist cradle-to-grave mentality discourages thought and exploration. “You will conform.”

    1. Negative. We are almost exactly the same intelligence as we were 100 years ago.
      However, our education is vastly less among the more intelligent members of the population, Logic and rhetoric are no longer taught rigorously, anda HUGE number of people have specialized to the point where information overload is a serious factor in intellectual pursuits.
      Essentially, we are smart as ever, we have simply forgotten how to THINK.

  27. Men have lost the war of the sexes that started in the 20th century. But that being said i’m for women having the right to vote in a republic. Note i said republic not a democracy because in a republic there are certain laws that cannot be overturned by the majority because of the adverse consequences that change could have.

  28. Operation Democracy Anal Rape: On election day make plans to spend the entire day with a hot slutty liberal cunt, who is strong and empowered (and living off daddy’s credit card) and you tell her you’re going to go to the polls together and vote later that day – lie about what time the polls close and the last hour that she would have had the opportunity to express her mindless beliefs at the ballot box, have your cock buried so deep in her ass that she’s choking on her own tears and snot (with the covert camera in the closet surreptitiously capturing it all for posterity and a boy’s night screening :^) Naturally you never call her again and you sent in your own ballot via early-mail in.
    These cunts are all so stupid you can effectively eliminate all female voting for women age 35 and under this way (not like you could get your dick hard enough to commit this with anyone over 35 obviously. We’ll need another plan entirely for the women of the wall – a thought too gruesome for me to partake in the strategizing thereof).

    1. Not sure how much support you’re going to find with a pro-rape campaign during election time. Or ever. But yeah, let us know how that goes – I’m sure you can still vote from prison?

  29. I always said that giving women the right to vote is what got us to where war are today.

  30. Women’s liberal “dispersal of goods and value” beliefs, though an evolutionary adaptation, seem to be based on one primary (unsupported) assumption: that Western Civilization is a fundamentally stable proposition.
    From that position, it’s easy to see why someone would be a liberal, want to give away the store to the poor and those who’ve never earned it… because if society can never collapse, it’s just plain old evil greed to deny it to them.

  31. yawn. thankfully, women in my country got their rights after they fought against the Nazis and Fascists.

      1. sweetie, a woman called for war against Socialists in my part of the world, and my mother went to war 20 years ago. Sure enough, nobody expected the West to start turning into a sissy so fast. ah well. we’ll survive since we’re used to it all. as for you… good luck, you’re going to need it.

    1. Unfortunately for humanity, the above response is not the only issue regarding women’s suffrage. Quite frankly however, universal suffrage was a mistake for either gender in my opinion. It tends to cause the political system to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Granted, this is not the only problem with electoral politics, yet it appears to be a significant factor in the problems facing such a system.

  32. My reason is, that women shouldnt be allowed to vote, is because they are too enslaved to their biology to make a rational decision in these matters. in regards to this, a woman has the rationality and intelligence of a retarded child, outside of what women were traditional raised to do.

  33. In reality we still haven’t progressed beyond the Garden of Eden. The devil still knows where to go and who to go to, to manipulate the situation in his favor.

  34. An absolute monarchy (as opposed to a feudal monarchy) may be a lesser evil than a highly centralized “representative democracy”, but a highly decentralized direct democracy is superior to both.

  35. What a great read, thank you!
    There was a reason the Founding Fathers restricted the vote to property owning males.

  36. One basic failing of feminism is that it is women pretending to be intellectual, and then convincing stupid men of their fantasy. And that is why so much nonsense creeps into the most practical of social sciences: economics, politics, business and strategic studies. When someone is dead wrong about sociology, then nobody cares until they try to apply their ninnie conclusions to one of the above, and then everything goes very wrong.
    Why are women and especially feminists underrepresented in STEM? Because they can’t fake it the way they can in social sciences!
    This carries over into how women behave politically.
    As a side note regarding who votes Democrat, the answer is: people who are particularly dull or are too clever by half. In terms of education (and one might suggest therefore basic intelligence), the average voter has a high school diploma, a bachelors degree, or something in between. Those people disproportionately vote Republican. Drop outs and people with graduate educations tend to vote Democrat (the conceit that Dems are smarter or better educated than Republicans is not supported by the evidence; the average education is the same, but it is distributed differently).

  37. ROK, I dig pieces that encourage men to develop and improve themselves but some of this is just weird
    1. Saying only Dems support welfare is just plain dumb. Dems and Repubs are two wings of the same vulture. They both give freebies in the form of corporate welfare all the time (“subsidies”). Both parties vote in favor of giving themselves annual raises even when their approval ratings are low. Both parties get free govt health care and free govt pension. All Presidents get $1M/yr for the rest of their life plus all kinds of welfare freebies for just working 4-8 yrs. If they did a crappy job or were caught committing a crime or lying, they still get their $1M/yr for life. Doesn’t matter what party they belong to. Your tax dollars at work – funding people who don’t work that long and need to maintain a lavish lifestyle of off my dime. If you single out Democrats and don’t lump them with other parties you are blind.
    2. States that receive the most tax money are the ones that say they hate welfare. Republican controlled states like Georgia and Alabama receive federal dollars diverted from states like Illinois and NY b/c of how dirt poor they are. They say they hate welfare then they take the most hand outs!
    3. The electoral college decides the President not voters. Candidates have won the popular vote but don’t go to office b/c the electoral college picked someone else. It’s happened several times in our history.
    Anyways, how about less constant talk about white males (I”m not white and I don’t like welfare – especially welfare for already-rich ppl.”Rich people use welfare the most “- John Stossel, Fox News) and more talk about male self improvement? These pieces on politics are weird.

  38. Democrats and Repubicans (mostly white guys) voted in unison to bail out big banks and airlines. One of the largest handouts in our history. You sure it’s only Dems who favor welfare?

  39. “A declining population rate is not relevant to her ideology, because feminism is all about the desires of the individual. Feminism is an ideology that glorifies selfishness.”
    What’s wrong with selfishness? Any moral code ultimately stems from the desires of individuals.
    A king appointed by God? While I agree that there are merits to a monarchy, I don’t think that a king is any more holy than a man-voted politician.

  40. “Women always take the beliefs of those around them. Better a man who loves her to have the strongest influence over her beliefs and actions than her catty girlfriends who despise her for being more attractive.”
    Quote from a paper on the Crimean slave trade about two centuries ago, apparently by Kırım Giray:
    Man, being, by his nature, independent, even in Slavery, preserves a force whichFear scarcely can contain […] The Conversion of such a man is always a Miracle;while that of Women, on the contrary, is the most natural and simple thing pos-sible. They are always of their Lover’s Religion.

  41. This article has more logical fallacies than Carter has little pills! It truly is a silly, silly article.

  42. Great article!Let me tell you something you really need.You met an amazing girl. She’s hot, hilarious, and chill. Obviously you want to peak her interest and get her thinking about you as soon as possible—but how? This plan changed my life, and made me new,see my view of it:>thedarkpark.com/mwwy

  43. I know I shouldn’t let this get under my skin. But not every woman is the same. Just like not every man is the same. I would like to think I am pretty logical . Others might disagree with me on this, but i’d like to think I am. I am a conservative republican, I am also a single woman. So I guess I am the anomaly is this discussion. The majority of woman I know are the same way. I do have a problem with feminist, I feel like everything is either sexist or racist when it comes to that group (liberals and democrats also). But I do like having the opportunity to vote and work.

Comments are closed.