Rollo Tomassi says women shouldn't have been allowed to vote because voting is proxy for war and women would have lost in the case of war, what do you think about this?

Standard-Banana6469 · 2026-03-01T08:59:31+00:00

Sounds like a stupid might is right argument. If strength = moral superiority thats not a good recipie for peace and freedom. Have any of these ppl read a book on moral philosophy? Lol

uniquelyfifi · 2026-03-01T08:33:08+00:00

No, because not all women are voting for one candidate, and not all men are voting for the opposite candidate.

Why would the war be men against women?

“The war” is Democrats versus Republicans and there’s both genders on both sides.

MarioWilson122 · 2026-03-01T18:51:21+00:00

Well, the selective service argument is a better argument Imo then really anything else. Since yes, they could lose in war, but their challenges aren’t as crazy nowadays, as it would’ve been back in the day before technology. Especially since they can be given certain roles that don’t put them directly on the ground. They will just need to have some type of technical experience, which can of course be taught. So that one isn’t all that great but is sort of tied to selective service but not directly, so I’ll have to disagree with it.

DzejSiDi · 2026-03-01T22:08:49+00:00

I don't agree that elections are a proxy for war. They are a proxy for conflicts that could escalate to wars, but it is not the same.

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense?

Friendly reminder that in reality, as long as we don't have killer robots, society is functions in limits of what military-aged men are willing to tolerate.

We can have different social contracts, including

Does this mean that older men like Rollo shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore because younger men are stronger?

that one, which to be honest makes sense and is fair to me. Not because younger men are stronger, but because he's too old to be drafted. You risk your life/health for an organisation called a "country", you have a voting right. You have no skin in the game, you stfu. You can have a different ways of "skin in the game", like being a net tax payer, but frankly speaking having a voting rights by a mere virtue of existing is a historical aberration and don't be surpriced if it will be revoked in some countries.

ClevelandSpigot · 2026-03-01T17:04:05+00:00

Your timing is impeccable. You are going to want to watch one of the most recent Joe Rogan episodes where he has Rachel Wilson (not her insufferable husband Andrew) on the podcast. She pretty much lays out the whole thing, and more, with sources and citations.

People don't like to hear this, but no one in America has a right to vote. The Constitution never grants that. The Amendments only state reasons why someone can be denied the ability to vote. It's always been up to the state to handle their own elections, and decide who can vote. Case in point, shortly after the Civil War, Utah (it was still a territory at that point, but a sovereign one) allowed women to vote. They overwhelmingly voted to keep polygamy intact. This was actually a point of contention with them becoming a state later.

And when you are a convicted felon, you also lose the ability to vote for the rest of your life, and you have to petition the court to get it back.

But, a man legally has to register for the Inactive Ready Reserve (the draft) when they hit adulthood. This comes along with the ability to vote. Women do not. So, women can vote for an elected official who starts a war that they themselves would not be affected by.

AwardLimp2736 · 2026-03-01T13:04:46+00:00

I don't believe in an egalitarian voting system, as yes, someone who is required to go off and die for the country should have more of a say as to how it is run.

I think it's fine to give someone in the army, say, two votes, but still allow women and citizens to vote as they do.

But just outright banning women? No. If you're going to ban women, ban everyone in a monarchy of dictatorship at least.

Outrageous-Floor-424 · 2026-03-01T23:20:30+00:00

There are a lot of morons out there. This is clearly one.

AutoModerator · 2026-03-01T08:01:10+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

anonymousppd123123 · 2026-03-01T13:15:34+00:00

much ado is made about men being stronger but men still make up the military when they're no longer required to form a shield wall and swing heavy spears around. because if you gave women the same physical strength as men they still rout immediately when the cavalry approaches and everybody dies.

If you're really upset about something like this you're not going to like the coming centralization of power once people start letting the proto AGIs rip on scenario modeling everything. Think a machine learning brain cranking through all the world's data and placing you specifically at the 55th percentile of intelligence putting you at .23 decision quality rating. The value of .23 DQR's input on decision making is another thing that can be modeled with mathematical certainty once you throw enough data and compute at the problem. I'm going to give you a hint, it's negative value for all outcomes besides stability.

You probably hate the idea of this but still feed it every day by carrying a constant GPS tracker/microphone without a removable battery everywhere and pumping data into websites whose business model is creating a digital twin of you to sell to the highest bidder. You won't stop feeding it knowing all this because you're mentally weak and would have lost in the case of war

wolf2424b · 2026-03-01T14:30:08+00:00

Even though I think woman should not be allowed to vote, I disagree with this argument. If nothing else, it proves too much. Should disabled people be allowed to vote? People over the age of 80? People who live in Rhode Island? All of these groups would lose hands-down if there were a war against them.

Besides, if there were an actual civil war in the US involving women as a group, I'm pretty confident that women would end up on the winning side. Either because (1) lots and lots of men would join the side where they had a chance at getting laid; or (2) women instinctively side with the (perceived) winning side.

funfacts_82 · 2026-03-02T07:44:57+00:00

Rollo is kind of a sellout.

His first book is good but everything after that is just clickbait.

Groundbreaking_Can81 · 2026-03-01T08:07:34+00:00

Go outside

AnonTheGreat01 · 2026-03-02T11:40:32+00:00

I'd say that his take is regarded but I get where he's coming from.

Basically no taxation without representation except he took it out on women only.

I'd take it a step further and say that the people who actually fight the war (military age men) are the ones who should decide.

Fuck some geriatric person or woman getting to decide if I lay down my life for their freedom.

Comments