696,680 posts

Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote "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."

Reddit View
May 16, 2014
0 upvotes
http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote


Post Information
Title Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote "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."
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 0
Comments 94
Date 16 May 2014 04:52 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/175004
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/25q2ze/women_should_not_be_allowed_to_vote_if_your_wife/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–]ajswdf32 points33 points  (10 children) | Copy

That doesn't make sense at all. If the argument is that our country is so much worse than it was before women could vote, it's an argument you aren't going to win with very many people. Not only are we far more technologically advanced now than we were then, but the United States as a country is far richer and more influential.

It should go without saying that for black people and other racial minorities, the country is much better now than it was back then. We don't have any lynchings or internment camps today.

But in reality this article can be summarized as "Most women are politically liberal, but I'm conservative, so women shouldn't vote". It's similar to liberals who say we would have been a lot better off if we had just let the South leave during the Civil War.

[–]TheOpposingView 13 points13 points [recovered] | Copy

The whole point of the vote is to turn what was once a soldier into a worker and what was once war into an election. You still get led by charismatic men against the enemy, it's just we agreed to trade death for a vote.

Take the vote from men, you will have war again. But, take it from women, nothing will happen, because they were never soldiers to begin with.

[–]16 MGaiusScaevolus1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

You, you I like.

[–]TheOpposingView 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Thanks. Once you view our system this way--as opposed to "freedom for all yay"--alot of things make more sense.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Violence is the universal right upon which all others are based. All other rights are concessions to dissuade the prevalence of needing to resort to the universal right.

Might makes right.

[–]remember136 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy

I believe that the author is a fool in saying that we can take women's right to vote back. Why? Because in the US, and in other countries as well, feminism are very close to ethnic minorities in terms political movements. The first feminists of America where friends with the first anti-slavery militants.

Say in America that you want to start a movement to deny women the right to vote. First thing that black people will do is ask themselves if after this they will be denied the right to vote.

Get real, man. This what you get when you abide by the social contract. Want to have power? Move to another country or start you own.

[–]drallcom31 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

One hand washes the other.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I don't get the vibe that the author believes we can take the vote back from women, or that it would be realistic to try.

I think he was making a different point altogether.

[–]remember133 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

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.

Please, dude, read the article carefully, it's not about what vibe you are getting. Also, there are a lot of men who watch X-factor...

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

And if I say "all the world is shit" do you think I've used a metaphor, or do you think that I literally think the world is made of poo?

The tone of the article is clearly a device to get the point across. I'm disappointed that you don't see that.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I believe that the author is a fool in saying that we can take women's right to vote back.

We can't, without revolution. Too much government relies on women's suffrage to exist.

But we have to remove it; we can't stop the self-destruction of the West as long as women have suffrage.

Unless we remove it, this society will collapse.

[–]1Zackcid-3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Early feminists were actually very racist if I remember correctly. They wanted their rights, while dismissing civil liberties for blacks. I don't have sauce, but I heard this by someone reputable earlier this year.

[–]16 MGaiusScaevolus3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

early everyone was very racist , to be fair

[–]remember131 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Some of them yeah, but the civil rights movement is closely connected with feminism nowadays.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

You realize that blacks are worse off by nearly any metric now compared to 1960, right?

Is this dude serious?

You realize that the increased wealth and technology was ALL created by men, right?

No, that's wrong as well. I know next to nothing of history and I can still offer up an example of a woman that contributed to science off the top of my head.

Seriously, TRP seems to have lost all pretenses of being about self-improvement and has gone full right-wing uber conservative anti-feminist "nanny staters". They'd give Beck or Rush a run for their money.

[–]bobthegreyduck0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

yeah, some of these boys are making us men look like jokes.

[–]Gstreetshit-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Economically and as far as the family unit is concerned, blacks are worse off now.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I'd have to see data on that. Though, even if that's true, that's hardly proof black people are worse off by "any metric".

[–]Gstreetshit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

"nearly any metric"

I'll see if I can find you a source. Something like 50% of black people grow up in single mother households. Growing up in a single mother household is an indicator for all kinds of problems.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 8 points9 points  (33 children) | Copy

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.

[–]skyisup3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy

For some reason you're associating women being allowed to vote with the issues of economic inequality which has resulted because of the rapidly advancing technology replacing well paid jobs with low paying service jobs which are purposefully kept low by the ever richer corporations. Overall, families with a working member account for 73 percent of all enrollments, amounting to two-thirds of all public benefit spending.

This is why politics should be kept out of RP.

[–]johngalt12341 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Women in lieu of their desire for protection and provision will grow the government to secure those services. Hence for women to vote is to vote in tyranny.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/

Abstract: In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland''s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women''s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

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

Excerpt: Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

  • Increased role of government
  • U.S. military intervention
  • Healthcare and welfare
  • Firearms restrictions
  • Affirmative action to achieve racial equality

[–]skyisup-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Again, this has the American view that welfare state is a problem and for this you're ready to violate human rights for half the population for no reason? Recent studies point to the US being an oligarchy with a political elite and it's the billionaires that your precious politicians crawl to for campaign money. The wealthy few move policy.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Again, this has the American view that welfare state is a problem

Welfare replaces fatherhood and husbandhood with bureaugamy.

It IS a problem. That's not an "American view", it's reality.

you're ready to violate human rights for half the population for no reason?

You have no fucking clue where rights come from, do you?

[–]AndrewAtrus-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Democracy already violates human rights inherently. If we must live with it (which seems likely), then at least having a smaller government means less of one's life is at the whim of others.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy

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.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -2 points-1 points  (21 children) | Copy

This really does get to the crux of it- women simply do not think the same as men, and when they're put in charge, this is what you get.

[–]desylid-1 points0 points  (18 children) | Copy

I've been openly misogynist for several months now.

I'll look women right in the eye and tell them (with charm of course) that women shouldn't vote. Almost all of them agree. None argue about it so far.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-4 points-3 points  (15 children) | Copy

No, it's actually really funny. I had a particular ex-coworker who I used to hang out with who would attempt to cock-block me by bringing up the fact that I believed women's suffrage was detrimental to the future of the nation.

Let's just say it never worked. Not only would the women agree with me I explained it to them, they were more attracted to me as well. When he tried to get his longtime liberal feminist friendzoner to hate me over my views on women's suffrage and watched it fail spectacularly, well he quit trying and suddenly didn't like me so much after that.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (14 children) | Copy

Wow this guy wants to disenfranchise our entire gender, so sexy…

[–]Gstreetshit-1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy

So does my wife.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy

Your wife what?

[–]Gstreetshit-1 points0 points  (11 children) | Copy

Doesn't think women should vote.

It's a prime example of moral hazard.

[–]remember13-4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Nah, boy. Go back to school. What happens, will happen is mostly because of men. Politicians gave women what they wanted because they were buying their votes. Mostly at the time were men. Even before that, the first ones to conceive that women should be treated as men were some dudes. We have to stop blaming womyn for all the evil and start taking the blame on us. We get ourselves in this shit because we were cowards, greedy, stupid.

But we can also change that. Start the world, guys!

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

We negligently allowed a toddler to drive a car. Of course it's our fault- but that doesn't mean it wasn't the toddler who drove it off the cliff.

[–]johngalt12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Women aren't designed to have power. It's not in their nature.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy

1) Government would be 2-5% of GDP, as it was in almost every democratic country before women's suffrage.

2) Welfare state wouldn't exist, taking massive chunks of your tax dollars.

2.a) Without welfare state, people would advance due to necessity.

2.b) Without welfare state, charity would be reasonable and a gift from people rather than an entitlement from government.

3) Nanny state wouldn't exist, allowing you to live your life without overregulation.

3.a) War on drugs likely wouldn't exist.

3.b) The 2nd Amendment would be respected (women's suffrage and gun control are linked)

4) Women would not get all the state support for their bastard children.

4.a) Men would be seen as valuable in a relationship.

4.b) TRP would likely not exist, due to lack of need.

I could build this list for hours, but let me just sum it up:

We would not be experiencing all the predictable and expected outcomes of the moral hazard of giving women 55% control of government while responsible for 1/4-1/3 of the taxes supporting it and 0% of the conscription defending it.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

You've made a great connection here. Since the welfare state has more or less replaces the need for fathers, it has rendered fatherhood almost entirely useless.

[–]Upvote Me!trpbot[M] -6 points-5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/Demonspawn by redpillschool. [History]

[This is an Automated Message]

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I just realized how powerful and useful a tool the internet really is. Future generations of men could learn what we have learned at much younger ages. I believe this could lead to world peace one day in our lifetimes. It won't be perfect, but I have a vision for it.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

My tax bill would be lower, and everybody who lives on my street would have to get jobs. Oh no!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Hopefully politics would not be the Hollywood charade it is today.

Removing the most gullible and child like demographic from the voting pool would likely do good things.

I'm sick of hearing from my women friends that they voted for X because he looks "nicer" than the other guy.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gstreetshit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's very true and common unfortunately

[–]HAMMURABl0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

you would be able to smell the freedom.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]UnusualOx4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy

everyone has a right to the democratic process

No. Women should NEVER be allowed to vote. Neither should black people.

Neither should white males.

NOBODY has the right to another person's property or to control them against their will. I would argue that the ultimate red pill is in figuring out the basic truth that all laws are universal. If it is immoral for you or me to steal or to initiate force against another human, it is also be immoral for people who call themselves government officials to do the same thing. The so-called "democratic process" is just another phrase for theft and tyranny.

There are many well-intentioned people who probably would immediately recoil at that statement. It's because you're taught that democracy is grand all of your lives. You're really not supposed to question that. It would be as if you grew up in an Islamic society and were taught all of your life from the moment that you could comprehend language that God is Allah. That's how brain-washed people are to the concept of democracy. It's taught that democracy is good as a given but we're not supposed to ask why.

The more "democracy" that has been added, the faster that society has gone downhill, not just financially, but also culturally as well-intentioned attempts to help any and all groups have usually harmed them and incentivized negative behaviors.

The solution isn't to make democracy more equitable or accessible, but to recognize that it is just as abhorrent when somebody wears a fancy hat called a crown and decides to take a chunk of their neighbor's wealth as it is when society decides to hold a election and do the same thing.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]UnusualOx0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

You've done a very good job of repeating the argument that government schools teach you about the necessity of government. In a very short amount of space, you've said a lot I disagree with. Rather than inundate you with historical examples or a discussion of ethics, I will just ask you 2 simple questions that lead into a very simple point.

1) Do you believe that there is a global government in existence today? 2) Do you advocate the existence of a global government?

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I would argue that the ultimate red pill is in figuring out the basic truth that all laws are universal.

Yes. And those "laws" are: Might makes right. ;)

An-Cap, extreme libertarianism, anarchy all sounds good, until you realize that the entire world has to do it at once and you have to avoid never having 100-1000 guys get together and decide that they want to take what other people have.

So, yes, we form governments... groups that protect us from other groups. There is some price to pay inherent in this, but it's the lesser of the two costs. The goal is to lessen the cost while still keeping the benefit (not being conquered and enslaved).

[–]UnusualOx1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

There will always be hundreds or thousands of people who want to do this and are willing to murder the crowds who stand in their way. That's why it's a bad idea to create an unbelievably centralized concentration of wealth and power and make it available for the best liar to control.

Not counting wars, how many tens or hundreds of millions of people were rounded up and exterminated by governments in the last hundred years alone? I'm just talking about mass murders here, not all of the other abuse that comes with people taking power over others.

In order for you to make some sort of utilitarian argument that we're better off with government than without government, you would need to prove that not having a centralized power would result in an even worse outcome than what has provably and demonstrably occurred.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not counting wars, how many tens or hundreds of millions of people were rounded up and exterminated by governments in the last hundred years alone?

Quite a few. Upwards of 75 Million IIRC. That happens when people give too much power over to the government and then accept disarmament.

In order for you to make some sort of utilitarian argument that we're better off with government than without government, you would need to prove that not having a centralized power would result in an even worse outcome than what has provably and demonstrably occurred.

Because without government you are going to get government... from the government that conquers your uncollected group of people.

The trick is to not allow your own government to enslave you. Unfortunately, no constitution limiting government can survive universal suffrage and current "progressive" ideals promote equality and therefore universal suffrage.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy

People never have, and never, EVER will have a stake in the "system". The stake has always been in future generations.

everyone has a right to the democratic process.

What about children and felons? Regardless, voting is not a right. We are not a democracy, and if you had any iota of knowledge about your government (assuming you're American) you would know that democracy was seen as a tyranny of the masses by the very founders. Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government in existence, and the vote was originally extremely limited for very good reason. Do a bit of thinking before spouting off liberal faggot nonsense.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]bam2_890 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

In most states they are. My conservative state allows felons to vote, but extends ballot denial through parole.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I would guess the thinking is that someone who so egregiously violates the law is extremely unlikely to be able to make decisions benefiting the community as a whole. But I'm not really sure why that is the law

[–]Harry_Teak1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's the law because someone who's been screwed by the system is less likely to vote for things that support the system.

Think of it from the perspective of the typical sheep that thinks the legal system works like it does on CSI:Whatever. They get arrested, processed, and come out the other end with their eyes newly opened to the realities of Justice, Inc.

The process doesn't tend to create people who'll still gladly support the status quo while munching their McBurger...

[–]calamity_joe[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Then fight the idea of democracy itself rather than blame women for somehow polluting the whole thing when the issue is far more complex than just on segment of the population being the cause of America's decline

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Obviously it's more complex. That doesn't mean that women's suffrage isn't a major part. We are a republic. We aren't democratic. That is a pretty lie told to give people a fucked up idea of our government. The "right" to vote has always been limited for a reason (even in Athens, the founder and pinnacle of your "democracy"). You should think about what those various reasons might be.

If you subscribe to TRP theory even a little you should realize that women are easily controlled creatures governed more by emotion than logic. They simply are that way and always will be. Giving a segment of the population that hardly above the level of children is clearly a stupid move.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy

We take the good with the bad for the sake of inclusiveness so that everyone had a stake in out system.

What's more important, inclusiveness or avoiding self destruction?

Said another way: what's more important, feelings or results?

Choose wisely.

[–]calamity_joe[🍰] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy

Dude, women voting is not going to destroy this country for Christ's sake. Corporate interests, unfettered and favored lobbying practices, an ill informed, apathetic population created by a sensationalist media most certainly will. To say women shouldn't vote even if we do disagree with their trending messages is just pathetic and it ignores that vast, more present and reasonable cracks in the foundation of our democracy.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy

Corporate interests, unfettered and favored lobbying practices

And who made government so big that corporations could do this?

an ill informed, apathetic population created by a sensationalist media

Guess who the media serves?

To say women shouldn't vote even if we do disagree with their trending messages

No, because it's a moral hazard to give a 55% controlling interest in government to a group which supplies 1/4-1/3 of the taxes which pay for government and 0% of the conscription which protects it.

[–]calamity_joe[🍰] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy

Okay, then, let's hear your big idea then. What does your America look like then? After we take away women's right to vote, who's next? Christians? Communists? Anarchists? The unemployed? The gay?

Who decides? You?

Democracy is not designed for efficiency, it's not necessarily designed for fairness either, but it is designed to give people some agency in governance. There will always be people we don't agree with and it's absolutely foolish to believe we can just lop off segments of our collective body and expect them just to deal with it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The notion that democracy is designed to give people some agency in governance is preposterous. It's designed to give people the illusion of choice.

In Australia (and America) we don't have a democracy. We have a democratic republic. We don't vote on issues, we vote for people to vote on the issues and we trust that those we elect to office will have our best interests as their top priority. But it is simply is not the case. We don't have a say in our governance but we do have a say in how our governing appears. It's the illusion of choice.

Right now we have a Prime Minister who is making choices that oppose the general consensus of the nation. He is literally doing things that the majority of Australians are against and not doing things that the majority of Australians are for. Where is my agency in governance?

I don't see why everyone needs to included in the democratic process. Voting is mandatory in Australia and yet in 2010 1.5 million out of the 15.5 million eligible voters were missing from the electoral role. 900,000 of those on the electoral role didn't vote anyway and 700,000 of the ones that voted did so in a manner that intentionally made their vote invalid.

20% of the eligible voters in Australia could not care any less about their governance. Why should they be given the opportunity to vote when they quite clearly don't want it?

Why should the most gullible and emotional and irrational people be given just as much voting power as everyone else? Why do complex issues need to be chopped down into 5 second sound bites so that the morons can think they're informed when they sit down to watch the "news".

The major issues in last years federal election were illegal immigration and somehow, foreign aid spending and "balancing the budget". The currently elected PM literally said he would "balance the budget" and that was it. He didn't explain how to planned to do that or why it was so important. He just said that same phrase over and over again.

Foreign aid spending (NATO promise) was cut by $4.5bn over 4 years and the authority, AusAID, that has managed the Australian Governments foreign aid spending for just under 40 years was dismantled and closed. I don't know how, but $4.5bn dollars in foreign aid spending became issue number one. It was on the front page of newspapers and on the nightly news for weeks leading up the election. $4.5bn cut out of an expected 4 year deficit totaling $56.3bn. Issue number 1 for the nation was 7.9% of our projected deficit and only 1/3 of 1% of our 4 year revenue. 0.3%. Zero point three percent of our budget over the next four years became issue number 1. Is this a joke?

The other major issue was illegal immigration. The stupidity of the average Australian on this issue is insane. It was for almost a year the single most talked about issue in Australian politics judging by the media. Sensationalism should refer to Australia and illegal immigration in the dictionary. Our current PM campaigned on "stopping the boats". It was one of the few polarized issues in Australian politics and every moron in the country has a (stupid) opinion on it. 20 million people live in Australia. All documented illegal immigrants that came to our shores in the last 40 years could sit inside the MCG a couple of times over. I'd like to know how a few thousand illegal immigrants entering the country is an issue worthy of attention?

According to Australian Parliament we have had 58,273 "illegal boat people" since 1975. 20 million Australians are being invaded by a force 0.29% of their size. STOP THE PRESSES!

I don't know who else to blame for the sheer stupidity of the "issues" in Australian politics or for the complete lack of information conveyed by the media to the Australian people.

I do know that the media serve women. I know that the most child like and gullible demographic in any voting pool is women. I know that women get the power to vote with non the responsibility of the nation in which they live. Women won't go to war, women won't earn as much as men, women won't learn as much as men and women won't produce as much as men.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the labour participation rate for men is 80% and between 60% and 65% for women. There are more unemployed women than men and female labour is more underutilized than males. Surprise surprise.

I spent some time looking at the gender gap in Australia in STEM careers and university courses. I couldn't find much aggregated data but every profession I looked at showed less women than men. 40% of graduate architects are women and yet less then 20% of registered architects are women. In 2013 women accounted for 28% of positions above senior lecturer in Australian universities and 17% in STEM fields. Meaning just under half of those women hold positions in useless fields like gender studies or liberal arts.

Women clearly contribute less to the societies in which they live. That doesn't mean they are not valuable, they are. But the notion that they should be given just as much say as the men who create and further that society and civilization is simply stupid.

Men are responsible for the running water I use, the sanitation of that water, the collection and disposal of waste, the house in which I live, the computer that I use, the infrastructure I use, the medicine I may need, the armed forces that protect me, the electricity I use, the food I eat, the car I drive, the roads I drive on, the bridges I pass etc, etc. Men are responsible for civilization as we know it. Why should a demographic that are not involved in furthering civilization have just as much as say those who are responsible for it?

I didn't mean for this post to become such a tirade. I don't mean for this all to be aimed at you either, OP. You're a victim of my cathartic process.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Okay, then, let's hear your big idea then. What does your America look like then?

I have a post on this thread about it. Ctrl-F for "1) Government would be 2-5% of GDP, as it was in almost every democratic country before women's suffrage."

After we take away women's right to vote, who's next? Christians? Communists? Anarchists? The unemployed? The gay?

The people who do not support government. If you want to control it, you have to put stake in it.

it's absolutely foolish to believe we can just lop off segments of our collective body and expect them just to deal with it.

Name any serious revolt where women were on the front lines.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Name any serious revolt where women were on the front lines.

Beautifully put.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

First of all; everyone does NOT have the right to the democratic process.

Voting age is 18. Minors cannot vote, nor can felons.

I understand that "everyone has a right to the democratic process. We take the good with the bad for the sake of inclusiveness" is what you're told in school. You're also told that everyone is equal and everyone has inalienable rights and that everyone is entitled to an opinion and that we are all one big happy family.

We do take the good with the bad for the sake of inclusiveness, I just don't see the point though. Why take the bad if we know it's the bad. Why bother with carrying dead weight?

I don't understand why everything in modern day society is about equality. Nature is not equal. All equality means is that the valuable are burdened with the valueless. The only group that benefits is the parasitical one. Which makes me believe that the majority of people in any society are dead weight latching onto the capable and virtuous few for a free ride while proclaiming their right to do so through idiotic notions such as equality for the sake of itself.

[–][deleted] -3 points-3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]calamity_joe[🍰] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah, pal. In democracies, people often vote for shit you don't agree with, and I don't agree with that stuff either, but that doesn't mean you advocate to remove a segment of the population because you see it as prohibitive on the kind of change your group would like to see.

And you're right, those representatives don't have to do what we say, and they do often mislead or mischaracterize themselves and their positions, but in a system that we have built to allow for all (with few exceptions) people to participate in, we must allow all people to participate because who then will decide who's positions are invalid and unproductive and who should be disallowed to vote next?

Because if it were the case that we acted in this way, RP voters would be on the axe for sure. We safeguard the access to vote to one another because the majority might wish to eliminate the minority or groups of minorities. A system without at least the illusion to access breeds discontented and marginalized portions of the population and that's just asking for instability and violence society- wide.

You can't treat real life like a round of Civilization. There's always going to be non-ideal situations and circumstances to work with

[–]TheRedTrader2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Feminine qualities such as the need for security and the herd mentality (i.e. less variance in opinion) has led to women having a very strong voice within democracy. This has most likely led to more left leaning governments and the gradual increase in size of said governments. I agree with the author that this decision has had a huge impact on the society that we now see today.

The result is the increase of men seen in the article, I imagine this man would of been of little use in the early 1900's.

For the ruling elite though it is excellent! Who wants to try and control rational thinking individuals when you can introduce a new population of voters who are much more easily controlled through emotion.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you knew it would get you banned, why would you say it? Seems to me you have a judgement problem.

[–]Lipophobicity-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

No offense to redpillschool, I generally like your posts, but this article is a perfect example why we shouldn't link Return of Kings here.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Listen, I don't expect people to jump on the ban female voting bandwagon. Instead, I expect people here to rationally discuss how women vote, the differences, the good and the bad. Because that's what we do here.

This author has some interesting points, I'd like to see them discussed. One of the best parts of TRP is discussing anything no matter how politically incorrect it may be, and sometimes discussing ideas that you may not agree with.

[–]RedPillWisdom2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

If women could not vote, every liberal dipshit who has ever sat in the Oval Office after 1960 would have been defeated by his more sane, conservative opponent. No women shitting up the ballot box, no Carter, No Obama.

That alone is worth the escapist fantasy that the world might not be careening off a fucking cliff, while on fire, and pursued by flying sharks, because the incentive not to drive it off said cliff died with the rise of entitled princesses who voted themselves the keys and free books of matches.

The article in Return of Kings is pointing out the moral folly of giving rights to those who nothing is requested or required. There is real wisdom there.

[–]remember13-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Return of Kings is a good site. Also, here, we don't decide what sites we ban. I can give a fucking link from jezebitch if it is relevant to the discussion held here.

[–]bam2_890 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

More practical: deny the ballot to anyone receiving means-tested entitlements past six months.

[–]Gstreetshit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This would be a good first step.

I dont see why this isnt the case to begin with.

[–]HAMMURABl-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy

good post.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter