~ archived since 2018 ~

Do you feel that an intellectual criticism of women's suffrage is promoting hate? I think this has especially come to attention as Ukraine is drafting its men to fight in their war. The right to vote is tied to one having signed up for selective services, yet there's no expectation for women.

August 30, 2022
post image

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Do you feel that an intellectual criticism of women's suffrage is promoting hate? I think this has especially come to attention as Ukraine is drafting its men to fight in their war. The right to vote is tied to one having signed up for selective services, yet there's no expectation for women.
Author Liberated_Asexual
Upvotes 15
Comments 64
Date August 30, 2022 1:37 PM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/do-you-feel-that-an-intellectual-criticism-of.1139629
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/x1jdf0/do_you_feel_that_an_intellectual_criticism_of/

[–]bludkrazeRED AF[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd actually like to add that we don't appreciate discussing other subs moderation issues in here. If you think a moderation issue is as retarded as this reasoning please report the comment for Misinformation or possibly even hateful content. But don't make posts here about moderation issues in other subs.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of this meme: https://ibb.co/2Y5HRWF

If Mrs_Drgree isn't even willing to acknowledge shit like this, then by her own standards she is denying male suffrage and engaging in hate speech.

Or does hate speech against men in her mind just not exist?

[–]BumblingBeta 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I find that the debate is so heavily censored on purplepilldebate and a lot of other subreddits, it may as well not be debate, because you don't know what people are really thinking.

I remember there used to be a lot more free speech on the internet years ago. This wasn't on reddit, but I was on other discussion forums years ago that allowed you to discuss issues of race, it was ok to make sexual comments as long as they weren't too explicit, it was ok to banter with women and say comments like "that looks like a weird kitchen", you were allowed to throw around mild personal insults at people, you were allowed to go through people's past posts and post them so other people could see them in a totally separate thread.

Now all those things are deemed as either "hate" or "harassment" or they are deleted with no explanation other than "no discussion about X".

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

That's because the discussion space is now dominated by large companies, whose goal is profit, not actual discussion. You can still set up your own website discussion forum, and say whatever you want.

[–]BumblingBeta 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough. What are we all doing here on reddit then? :P

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

Sheep. People who can't think for themselves, follow the easiest path, don't understand how they are being manipulated.

Smartphones really, the masses have left their browsers for phone apps.

[–]KirthWGersen 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow! It does appear that her definition of "hate" is "anything I don't like people discussing".

[–]Drive-By-CuckersWhitePill 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean the idea that women can vote isn’t harmful it’s the idea that women shouldn’t be drafted but men should be

The draft should be equal or not exist at all because otherwise there’s discrimination on the part of the government, likewise, voting should be equal otherwise the government is still discriminating

Honestly gendered language should just be removed from legal codes (kills two birds with one stone since it also affects people who don’t conform to gender binaries) and that way everyone will be treated more equally in the eyes of the law

[–]alienamongnormiesBlackPill 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I feel women should have the right to vote. But they should also have equal responsibility for the draft. Ideally the military should remain voluntary period. Except in extreme circumstances.

[–]HinduProphet 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Incompatible with imperial ambitions.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a very stupid take and it's not hate nor is it against the TOS in any way.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's a stupid take?

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats it is promoting hate. Incredibly feminist take and quite frankly i think the moderation on this subject is quite hateful and discriminating men.

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i disagree with it so it's hateful... sums up ppd's moderation.

[–]Marzipan-Happy 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women should have the right to vote. I would also like to point out while men get drafted, women give birth, and thus provide to the governments military, even if it is a long return.

[–]RStonePTRedPill 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Universal sufferage did it. People without always vote for more stuff, and politics shifted from governance to parentalism

[–]ElectricBugs 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Its more a practical to have women stay home. People don't want men and women to die in war because when can breed to replenish the population and if they are busy off being killed then that will have a huge detrimental effect on population. Also, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, women are the ones doing a majority of child rearing and housework, so they are the ones best suited to staying home and doing the domestic and childcaring duties during war.

Now, that's completely fucked up but it is currently how it is. Personally I think no one should be drafted.

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

Also, a man can impregnate many women at the same time, so biologically we are more replaceable than a woman.

[–]Slipthe 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure but at what point does incest become a factor in the following generations?

I suppose there's an acceptable amount of relatives pairing that doesn't result in genetic defects?

[–]Taipanshimshon 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm about to hurt feelings.

I don't think people who have not served a nations military should be able to vote or hold office. Irrespective of gender.

This whole potential with selective service is a close second.

It's ok though. All sorts of feminism stops in dangerous situations.

I've said " bad feminist" to many women if such topics ever come up. They always giggle.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I actually agree to some extent. All I'm arguing for is that there is some standardized burden for any individual to obtain the right to vote.

Just look at the subthread on this thread with /u/Nihi1986 — they're too blinded by gynocentrism to realize they are explicitly arguing for female supremacy which is what the current system is currently configured for.

[–]Nihi1986 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You insist on calling it gynocentrism, which currently it is. However, allowing women to vote despite having less obligations doesn't make a system gynocentric.

Ill ans disabled people can vote and they don't contribute the same and can't join the military.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're picking niche segments of the population to compare to a segment of a population that encompasses the majority of the population? Oh yeah, it's not gynocentrism at all.

"I don't believe in equality — I just believe women should have the same rights without the same burden of responsibility."

This is your argument in a nutshell, and that is almost explicitly Gynocentric. You have yet to cite a single example of how women voting has benefited society at all. There's a lot of historical implications that it lead to the fall of Rome, and it's directly leading to the wall of the West.

[–]Nihi1986 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know what you are talking about possibly even better than you...yet I'm fine with women having less responsibility and same rights and I don't think it turns a system into a gynocentric one.

Women and men are different, they have different purposes and different skills/qualities overall. You still don't need to take any rights away from anyone even if responsabilities aren't the same.

I'm more concerned with women becoming awful partners and mothers, I don't care if they vote or not. Plenty of guys voting with their asses to the wrong parties which have been pillaging my country for decades.

[–]Taipanshimshon 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They aren't a class based on birth.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't allow that shit in my subreddit either. That's like discussing castration or forced vasectomies for men because the court shot down Roe v Wade.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Uh you know many female oriented subreddits were actually suggesting as such? Plenty of people saying men should be forced to get vasectomies in response to that.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't tolerate any of the above.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter what you would tolerate. It matters only what the establishment deems tolerable.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's when you launch a resistance. Look what a handful of dumbfuck antivaxers could do to a city with their trucks. If we adopted their tactics we would win this.

[–]Admirable_Bee_8714 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing said in that original post was false or promoting hate. But this is why there can never be an intellectual conversation about this because the feminists don't really want rights. Rather they want convenience and advantage. Rights come with responsibilities and they don't want that. Of course the government is only too happy to oblige.

[–]pikecat 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Discussing any idea is not hate. Discussion and implementation are completely different things. You can even discuss ideas that you think are not true, for fun.

We could discuss the most ridiculous things, and it's not hate.

Unintelligent and close minded people, and people pushing their own, often hateful agenda, are the ones who can't handle idea discussions. You can't discuss ideas with these people, they won't allow it.

In you case, people can't distinguish between the discussion of an idea, criticism of an idea in theory, and criticism of women.


I once proposed an idea for discussion. It was a logical extension of the precepts of feminist ideology. If what feminists says is true, then what I proposed had to be true too. No one discussed the idea, they just hated on me and tried to get me to affirm the party line, just like people in communist countries had/have to do. They all missed the point.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It was a logical extension of the precepts of feminist ideology.

There is nothing logical about feminism and trying to argue with them can only lead to hate.

[–]pikecat 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean, it was a logical extension of their idea. Not my idea.

That extension was against their ideology. It showed the logical inconsistency of their dogma.

It was guys who were against me. Not one person understood the concept. They were arguing against historical fact. They were arguing against feminist "facts" of the past, just because of the way it was worded.

[–]bludkrazeRED AF 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats why the outcome can only be hate because those people dont believe in facts and want to make up their own logic.

[–]lostwanderer28 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just as a reminder, there are now about 6 million Ukrainian refugees within 1 year.

There have been about 1 million Syrian refugees within 2 years.

Who is fleeing their country again instead of defending it?

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

As men we are born with the knowledge that our lives are worth less than the lives of women by nature’s default. Because of this burden we reap some of the privilege.

[–]h1shman 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women don’t belong in the military. Your point is moot.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What about women being conscripted into support roles like medical and logistics? Thats how it is in Israel, one of the few countries that does have mandatory military service for women. I know women aren't as combat capable as men, but there are still plenty of places for them in the military.

Equal rights should come with equal responsibilities.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Imo this should be an option for anyone who is drafted but not combat capable.

As an epileptic woman, even if the draft did include women I’d still be medically exempt. However, if roles available to people who wouldn’t be valuable in combat were an option I think it’d be a lot easier to fairly draft and assign drafted people.

[–]h1shman 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If it’s not a combat role sure. Was thinking the US draft has only ever applied to combat positions though. Were someone not physically capable they weren’t drafted so I assume they only needed combat at personnel.

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

I dont think its inherently hateful but unfortunately the people who run reddit more than likely do so i get why some mods may be a bit concerned about it.

[–]darksoul1622NeutralPill 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay so I will answer yes you were promoting hate I will expand on why now but before I would like you to know my position and my believes to understand why I'm saying this .

I am male , socialist , and anti-war with that said you are promoting hate by bringing to question the fundamental right of voting a right that should be afforded to every citizen of a nation by virtue of being a part of that nation participating in building said society, any elected leader or official or even bosses who is decisions and action affect your life or your work environment you should have a voice in electing them to even say that some people don't deserve to vote or should just accept conditions that are forced upon them by people that they did not elect is an infringement on their fundamental rights as workers of society ( yes women are a fundamental part of societies work force ) and citizens. It has nothing to do ( that is voting) with military service especially not in countries like the US where virtually all their wars besides the two world wars were imperialist wars which were not in any ways necessary for the survival or security of the US and honestly if we take this principle to it's logical conclusion we could say that a man that does not qualify for the draft should not have the right to vote ( that also includes railway men and doctors since alot of countries exclude them from the draft).

[–]SaltyGeekyLifter 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope. No he was not. He wanted dialogue.

Lefties don’t like dialogue, and that’s why the harpy in question shot him down.

Before you reeee back, consider this. Nobody got to see an explanation of why he was wrong. They just saw him silenced.

His argument was therefore not defeated, it was covered up.

Do you get why that’s a bad thing, mr socialist?

[–]darksoul1622NeutralPill -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No I can say hey let's discuss the fact that black people are dumb monkeys and the white race is naturally superior you now granted this is a hyperbola but it should illustrate why some arguments Don't deserve to be dignified with a response see the paradox of tolerance

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

Wrong again.

Because anyone who put forward that argument deserves to have it shredded, and those people who might otherwise agree with that argument can then see that shredding and think “that opinion is wrong”.

Cancelling/blocking people is counterproductive. It is silencing their voices, not dismantling their arguments. Those same impressionable minds see it happening and think “that opinion is being suppressed - there must be some truth to it.”

Cancelling racists makes more racists. Is that what you want?

[–]Eyesofmalice 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're absolutely right btw. Right wingers will claim leftist don't want to debate, but they don't care about listening, just talking over everyone else.

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think admins may very well consider it breaking TOS and might use “hate” as the reason, since it’s not exactly an advertiser friendly sentiment.

I don’t think you’re promoting hate with that. I think you’re wrong and don’t seem to know the history of US women’s suffrage (it involved a lot of married women being thrown in prison due to riots and such, then going on hunger strikes to fuck with the prison guards and higher ups as well as some other interesting things) that legitimately destabilized parts of the country.

Plus there’s the whole “no taxation without representation” thing which does refer specifically to being able to vote on taxes and such in exchange for being taxed. While I do think women should also need to sign up for the draft I don’t think taking away our right to vote until we do would be the easier or better solution.

Also, not only is there no expectation for women to sign up for the draft, we’re not legally allowed to do so in the US.

[–]no_bling_just_dingWhitePill (self aware MSTOW) 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

the suffragettes also committed arson and married ones committed tax frauds to send their husbands behind bars

[–]DivineDaedraChadwife 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The arson doesn’t surprise me

[–]IHateNormis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think literally anything can be interpreted as “hate” by anyone. The concept of “hate speech” is stupid and is just used as a proxy to censor anything the person in charge doesn’t like.

In regards to suffrage for females, I do not agree with it. Where I live the result of females voting has resulted in left wing governments which essentially subsidises females picking abusive Chads.

Also you do make a good point about the draft. If I am expected to give more to the state my say should count for more.

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

This has been explained numerous times on numerous forums. There is a difference between advocacy FOR men and hate speech AGAINST women. And it usually takes the same format:

“If women want rights, we should have the right to hurt them.”

It’s pretty easy to see here, and in no way hidden.

“If women want the right to vote, they should be forced to risk their lives in the draft.”

Which makes the thesis of this statement “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

Not “people shouldn’t be drafted” Not “all genders should be drafted” Not “I want to return to the exact structure of laws pre-suffrage”

But “I don’t want women to be allowed to vote.”

I mean honestly it’s not like this douche was ever drafted. And don’t men in the military complain enough that female officers “hold them back”? And isn’t the “manly man” crowd’s favorite pastime complaining about strong women with muscles, or women who are too heavy. Haven’t they spent generations promoting weakness and insulting strong women?

Dude doesn’t want equality. He wants to get away with oppression. And he’s not even clever

[–]bludkrazeRED AF[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He wants to get away with oppression. And he’s not even clever

Keep the personal insults out of this.

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

A bit

[–]Swapsta 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really hate

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women deserve more rights than men, ask anyone!

[–]Nihi1986 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

They know very well that non important, non rich men (your average men) is a second class citizen who will be forcefully drafted to fight an invading army.

I bet that many women are fighting too and I know many women have been victims, but this clearly shows the reality. We only see reality when shit hits the fan, in this case a war...

Edit: forgot to answer. Women's right to vote should honestly not be questioned, it's one of the basics in a somewhat decent democracy.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What if you've simply been conditioned to believe that's what an essential part of a "decent democracy"?

Ultimately it goes back to the original point — if something is required for men to achieve X, but said thing isn't required for women to achieve X — how is this "equality"?

[–]Nihi1986 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I get your point but you can't really apply it here for one reason. There's an uncomfortable truth, or two... that you won't hear while discussing certain subjects: women are(or were) more valuable than men for society, and men are better suited for wars.

A tribe without many men could survive, a tribe without many women was doomed. You only need one man and many women to have a lot of children but you can't have one women and many men for reproduction. And while this sounds too much like stone age stuff, it's not.

As for the democracy subject...I'm open to both ideas, a democracy where the right to vote is earned and a democracy which grants the same rights (in theory) to everyone.

'how is this equality?' it never was...it's never going to be. What I consider 'equality' or something close, would be the governements and society as a whole caring the same for everyone and adapting to their (reasonable) needs, even if it potentially means having a slightly different law for every group or gender. To be blunt, I'm personally ok with women being privileged in some ways, I'm definitely not ok with men being demonized or forced to do any shit.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

You still have yet to make an argument for why women should deserve the right to vote on the ground of equality OR how any governing body benefits from women voting. The more women vote in policies — the less they reproduce, which by your own logic would almost be a de facto argument against women's suffrage.

[–]Nihi1986 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It is true. The more freedom the less they reproduce. They should deserve the right to vote because they are part of society and work. You are tying the right to vote with military drafting but as I said I don't believe in equality since women and men are differents.

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

Eh, I think there's a lot of people, both men and women, that have no business voting. The problem is deciding who should and who shouldn't.

[–]Liberated_Asexual[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. My main thesis throughout this post is that there should be equal responsibility tied to equal rights (index for authority).

[–]Eyesofmalice 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously. Like you're denying citizens the ability to vote IS hateful.

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

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter