Saturday, June 15, 2013

End women's suffrage

Do you want to do something valuable as a man? Any MGTOWs out there looking for a way to make positive change? Convince a woman she should support the end of women voting.

Don't start with a liberal, that will get you no where. If you are married, convince your wife. Convince a conservative woman. If you have Christian based conservative beliefs, it is quite easy to support taking the voting rights away from women. Read these links:

Thoughts on Female Suffrage and in Vindication of Women's True Rights:
We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duties which God has imposed upon us, than they have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist. We feel that our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and abilities; and that they are none but ourselves can perform. Their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to compel us to assume those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage; but which cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and of society." [...]
This question of female suffrage is an outcropping of socialistic doctrines, and here we are answered by the many and confused voices of its teachers. Communism is an essential part of their grand scheme. “The family relation, the inviolability of marriage, the home-life,” these, for them, are effete. The new heaven - the Shibboleth - is the State. Let all be made productive for her alone. It is a waste of material and a misappropriation of labor, for each woman to devote herself to the care of her own progeny. Let these, with various other children, be gathered into communities where one or two women may perform the office for many, and let the many devote themselves to other objects. A grand utilitarian age this! We almost go back to Sparta of old; and when our women are allowed to encroach, as theirs were, upon the public and civil life, in the process of Pagan hardening for this Juggernaut state car, then will our women, maidens and wives become as shameless and dissolute as died theirs, Then Sparta fell! [...]
For that which alone distinguishes our civilization above all others is, that it is Christian.  Now, female suffrage, dragging women into that sphere of duties incident to man’s life, must speedily destroy the perfect balance, the nice adjustment, which produces the harmony of the Christian plan. Nor can we destroy any portion of this plan and preserve the rest intact. A common ruin and relapsing into Pagan codes will be the result. Already, as a corollary to these doctrines, we are told that children must be given up to the State to educate. The precise practice of the old Pagans. Christian mothers, are you prepared for this?
The warnings of the authors prove eerily prophetic when we look at this study titled, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
By many measures the progress of women over recent decades has been extraordinary: the
gender wage gap has partly closed; educational attainment has risen and is now surpassing that of men; women have gained an unprecedented level of control over fertility; technological change in the form of new domestic appliances has freed women from domestic drudgery; and women’s freedoms within both the family and market sphere have expanded. Blau’s 1998 assessment of objective measures of female well-being since 1970 finds that women made enormous gains. Labor force outcomes have improved absolutely, as women’s real wages have risen for all but the least educated women, and relatively, as women’s wages relative to those of men have increased for women of all races and education levels. Concurrently, female labor force participation has risen to record levels both absolutely and relative to that of men (Blau & Kahn, 2007). In turn, better market outcomes for women have likely improved their bargaining position in the home by raising their opportunities outside of marriage.
Given these shifts of rights and bargaining power from men to women over the past 35 years, holding all else equal, we might expect to see a concurrent shift in happiness toward women and away from men. Yet we document in this paper that measures of women’s subjective well-being have fallen both absolutely and relatively to that of men. While the expansion in women’s opportunities has been extensively studied, the concurrent decline in subjective well-being has largely gone unnoted...

In: Why don't women have to vote, Vox Day writes:
1. There is no evidence that women voting has been a positive development in any nation in the world. Should someone like to submit some for once, I'd be happy to examine it. I find it telling that no supporter of women's suffrage has yet been able to respond with anything but naked and unsupportable assertions.

2. There is no correlation between voting and the defense of life, liberty and property rights. The two countries which top the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong and Singapore, have severe restrictions on voting and political representation. In Hong Kong, only one-third of the legislative council is elected. In Singapore, voting is considered a privilege, not a right. Meanwhile, voting is permitted and even required in most of the countries that make up the bottom ten, including Cuba and Zimbabwe.

3. History shows that the women's vote is inextricably tied to a substantive loss of individual freedom. Only 22 years after women received the right to vote in Switzerland, that country passed an amendment to its constitution giving the federal government the right to pass legislation relating to firearms. Within four years, legislation had passed requiring permits for weapons purchases, permits for bearing arms in public and banning handguns, in direct contradiction of its centuries-old militia tradition, and now the militia system itself is under attack by the SDP, the Swiss Socialist Party.

4. The opponents of women's suffrage have been proven correct with regards to their predictions of a) increased divorce, b) increased abortion, c) sexual promiscuity, d) increased paganism.

5. John Lott has demonstrated a strong correlative link between women's suffrage and increased per capita state expenditures. The average increase in voter turnouts of 26 and 33 percent that occurred 25 and 45 years after the enactment of women's suffrage in a US state mirror the 24 and 31 percent increases in state spending over the same periods of time. He also concluded: "The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large."

And in Defense of sexual predilection he writes:
Consider the fate of Switzerland.  Women were not permitted to vote there until 1971, much later than the rest of Europe.  This is the primary reason why Switzerland retains its sovereignty whereas neither democracy nor national sovereignty presently exists in any of the member states of the European Union, which is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected European Commission.  But even in Switzerland, it only took 28 years post-suffrage for the national constitution to be modified to permit the passage of gun laws, and for extensive restrictions to be placed upon the ownership of firearms.  As for the EU, note that in Italy, even the pretense of popular rule was abandoned in 2011 as the government is headed by an unelected, EU-selected Senator-for-Life.
It is easy to establish an objective metric to consider the effect of female suffrage on a nation without waiting to see how long it takes for female suffrage to be followed by the complete cessation of democracy or the loss of national sovereignty, which I note took as little as 19 years in the case of the German Weimar Republic.  A law is, by definition, a restriction on a human activity.  So, to prove that female suffrage is not inimical to human liberty, all that is necessary is to show that the number of laws being passed post-suffrage is equal to or less than the number of laws being passed pre-suffrage.  Alternatively, one could compare the lifespans of sovereign democracies and/or republics where women are, and are not, permitted to vote.


...and research the subject. In particular, focus on liberty vs. security.

If you convince one woman that she should support ending women's suffrage and arm her with knowledge, imagine the consequences. She will raise daughters with the same thought pattern. In the meantime, they should vote strictly as their husbands vote or their fathers if not married.

How do I know this is effective? I convinced SD that women shouldn't vote several years ago. It took some time (years). However, now she is a champion of the cause and is raising daughters with the same thinking. That really pisses off feminists. Winning the war takes time, invest the time.

10 comments:

  1. I've already convinced my mother and sisters of this. ;) Of course, they hate feminism almost as much as I do, so it wasn't all that difficult to win them over.

    Democracy is highly overrated. you realize how worthless your voting "rights" are anyway, it's no big deal giving them up. I know I'd happily give up my privilege to vote in exchange for liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree although I don't think I would have the nerve to ever write about it. Clinton and Obama would not have won if women voted. Men vote more pro-life than women. Clinton and Obama were not raised by fathers, thus seem to think more with their emotions and act based upon what is right for the moment. Bush and Romney had strong fathers and think more with their reason and see the whole picture. I would not mind at all if women weren't allowed to vote anymore...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on, write about it. Picture a million woman strong organization dedicated to ending women's suffrage. All of them raising daughters with the same mentality. The head spinning and hand waving of the liberals would be so entertaining.

      Delete
  3. The Shadowed KnightJune 15, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    Although I feel like an American collapse is the only way this will be reversed, convincing sufficient women to disenfranchise themselves would have global benefits. At the very least, it will provide the builders of the next civilizations an acceptable framework. The heavy lifting having been done already, they can iron out the details and kill the devils lurking within.

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/a-dozen-links-plus-i-miss-the-patriarchy-more-each-day-dont-you/ In this thread I had a debate with a couple of women on the wisdom of women voting. It contains some links to useful information that help make the point that women voting kills civilization.

    Keep in mind that it will require a strong will to convince a woman, and that weak men--at least any man a woman considers weak--can actually work against your goals. Anything he says will be suspect. A strong man with a dominant attitude will do much better. Women trust these men more than anyone; just look at the success of the pickup artists when imitating or embodying these traits. Be strong, lead, and they will follow.

    The Shadowed Knight

    ReplyDelete
  4. If men were united in ending women's suffrage, it'd end tomorrow. I've actually encountered in person a lot less resistance from actual women to the concept of ending women's suffrage than from men. So the work of convincing women should also be accompanied by convincing men that such is ok to advocate. The first step is demonstrating that 'white knighting' will NOT improve their romantic prospects.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the only type of woman who would agree to end women's suffrage are the type with the faculties to vote rationally in the first place. convince them not to vote, you'll still have the mass of single mom, government marrying whores voting for their own benefits

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In the meantime, they should vote strictly as their husbands vote or their fathers if not married."

    What should a woman do if her husband is more liberal leaning and she is conservative?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The point isn't to get more conservative voting short term. The point is to get women into submission long term. The voting of women must end if we are to have liberty. Voting and law making just isn't what women are cut out for. They are quite well created for protecting their family.

    It doesn't matter if their fathers/husbands vote liberally. If they submit to them, biblical principles will be reinstated by our society. History proves this. Thus why I have the links and encourage you to research it more. Feminine voting leads to totalitarian regimes. Eliminate that and...voila, liberty returns. Understanding how it happens it isn't necessary to appreciate the fact that it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Although I strongly support repealing the nineteenth amendment, I vote with my husband in every election. I simply vote however he votes; suffrage in our home essentially means two votes for HHG.

    ReplyDelete