Saturday, January 25, 2014

Why women lean left

The Chateau contemplates why women lean so reliably leftward:
the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.
This is one reason why the 19th Amendment was such a societally destructive mistake. The decision of the Founding Fathers to keep women out of the electorate was no more a coincidence than their decision to not extend the franchise to all French and British citizens or Benito Mussolini's decision to make the political empowerment of women the very first plank in the Fascist program.

Like it or not, increased female involvement in the governing process is inextricably linked to more intrusive and authoritarian government. If you oppose the latter, you have absolutely no choice but to oppose the former.


crazyivan498 said...

I agree that the result of womens suffrage speak for itself to say the least. My interest in this relates to the non-aggression principle. It seems that not allowing women to vote in a democracy would be a violation of the NAP. Yet if women are allowed to vote the ends will be the violation of the NAP. Just one more reason you can't have a free State even in a minarchist type society. women ruin everything

Markku said...

Sure we can allow them to vote. But we don't have to count their votes. That isn't aggression.

Anonymous said...

We can't also forget that the socialists---especially the Fabians---were to a man all in favor of female suffrage. The Fabians correctly saw that the selfish, give-me-more, weak female minds would easily and reliably vote socialist more than not. It was part of their long-term Fabian strategy.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Agreed. But in order to topple the current arrangement, we're probably going to need an "intrusive and authoritarian government".

Sensei said...

But in order to topple the current arrangement, we're probably going to need an "intrusive and authoritarian government".

In the words of Monty Python, "we've already got one."

mmaier2112 said...

"It seems that not allowing women to vote in a democracy would be a violation of the NAP."


jack attack said...

Alpha Fux and Beta Bux.

Women will always vote that way.

That's why they love Scandinavia so much. A place where they can fuck tall alphas, get impregnated by them, and then tax the betas at 70% of their income to pay for their bastard children w/o the unpleasantness of having to have sex with them. Since democracy and the welfare state make such a situation possible when you are 50% of the population, they will always vote this way.

If there was a male equivalent to Scandinavia, it would be Vaginastan. In Vaginastan, all men would be promised a harem of young women of equivalent beauty of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader Squad, that would be regularly replaced with young hotties as the current one got older. All men would of course vote in Vaginastan to keep the status quo going.

Doom said...

Just cut to the chase. Women are leftists, even when married, because they are dependent. They always will be dependent. And they believe being dependent isn't fair. That's it. They don't like what they are but can't change the facts. Essentially, politically as in real life, without bounds, they are suicidal. Sure, some of them vote Republican. But... at this point, with their help, Republicans ARE socialists. No help there. And socialism is suicide, slow or quick.

Women can't figure their way out of a wet paper bag. They really can't. They would sit and talk about things until there was no choice, then surrender. Or just nuke everybody. Seriously. Academically minded women? Most just know how to do what they are told. Some of them do it so well, and studied so deeply, they can pass as being actually creative, but they aren't. Get them out of the lab, or even in the lab, but outside of memorizing and being shown everything, and that's that for that. Unless you put them in their natural environment, where there is a chance instincts will kick in. I'm not from polite society, so I don't have to gloss over anything. And don't.

cecilhenry said...

married women should not be able to vote.

Jason said...

The problem isn't women voting as such but voting as such that is the problem.

I understand the reasons men were given the franchise and the argument was reasonable, but while voting allows people to engage in legalized plunder then voting itself is the problem. I'd buy the argument that women are more likely to vote in favor of legalized plunder but it isn't like their aren't men that would as well.

If legalized plunder was outlawed and vigorously guarded against it wouldn't really matter if 5 year olds voted, but while legalized plunder is permitted then anybody voting without skin in the game is going to be part of the problem.

Doom said...


Wrong. There is no real plunder when the men paying in are deciding how it is spent. They don't want to pay more than is necessary, but are interested in that money facilitating commerce, and defending property rights. It's only when those who don't pay get a vote that elections become a scam. It started out right and was bastardized.

Jason said...


No you are mistaken. Bastiat was right on this point. If one person can use the power of the state to force others to support them than that is legalized plunder.

That tax dollars extracted from me by force are paid to single mothers, the unemployed and others is an example of legalized plunder. The welfare state as a whole runs on legalized plunder.

The idea also well predates giving women the vote. Giving women the franchise may have accelerated the problem, but the problem already existed and was getting worse before then.

Dave said...

An old idea that may help: give everyone one vote plus another vote for every 10K paid in federal income tax. Since everyone gets at least one vote it's hard for them to argue they're disenfranchised.

Crusader Corim said...

Jason, every society EVER has had voting. Holy Roman Emperors were elected, Elders in ancient Israel were elected. The problem is extending the franchise to people who have no investment in the society, and to people who have a vested interest in destroying it.

The Pope, for example, is elected for life, but only by Cardinals under the age of 80. And that's why that Catholic Church has stayed so stable for 2000 years.

Feather Blade said...

One could neatly sidestep the protests against the removal of universal female suffrage by restricting the vote to landowners. This would take the vote out of the hands of those people who have no physical stake in society.

Unknown said...

Crusader Corim,

You are kind of making my point. The problem is legalized plunder, the ability as it is sometimes said to "vote for a living". This is hardly a problem unique to women though. While legalized plunder is permissible then the problem we are witnessing will always occur. It isn't "women voting" that is the problem, it is the ability to vote for a living that is the problem.

Disenfranchising women as a group while still allowing legalized plunder will not stop the problem. It might slow it down a bit because many women have an incentive to vote for a living but it would only address a symptom. Voting and election is not always and everywhere a bad thing, but the west has turned it into a fetish and that is a problem.

We agree, part of the problem is extending the franchise too widely. No argument, although my point about not caring if 5 year olds vote is because the problem isn't so much who votes, but what powers are invested in those they elect. It matters less who votes if the people they elect are not able to do all that much.

Would it matter who people voted for if those elected, if they over stepped their bounds and engaged in legalized plunder could reasonably expect to quickly find themselves lynched or otherwise removed from office? The problem is they can get away with such corruptions and abuses of power. No system is perfect but the current approach is well off the mark.

En-sigma said...

AAAAALLLL women lean further left than men. I am a fundamentalist. ALL of the women in my church are more liberal. And WAY too many of the men have the "happy wife, happy life" and " if Mamma aint happy, aint nobody happy" problem.

I have not seen the church that the women do not lean more left than the men and I have been to a lot of churches.

subject by design said...

@En-sigma - did you write "AAAALLLLL women" in order to emphasize that you really meant ALL women lean further left than men? Because that is not true. Please don't take me as jumping in here to say "NAWALT" because that isn't even necessary to point out the folly of your assertion. Only ONE woman has to be more to the right than a man to disprove your point.

I am to the right of nearly every man I have ever met, including those with whom I worship in conservative congregations. I am further to the right both politically and biblically.

I would agree that women, as a group, are more liberal than men, as a group. But you just can't use the word "AAAAALLLLL" and maintain credibility.

subject by design said...

"farther" to the right. :)

Post a Comment