Don't you believe that women should not be allowed a say in government?The commenter is hopelessly confused and is conflating several distinct concepts. Let me first make a few obvious statements:
Yes. That is the libertarian position. I can anticipate the flaws in your thinking. First, you are incorrectly conflating democracy with liberty. Second, you are failing to grasp that libertarianism concerns maximizing liberty. This cannot be done when women are permitted a voice in government, because they favor security over liberty.
How do you reconcile this position with the lack of agency above?
I don't claim women have a lack of agency. I never have. It is the equalitarians who insist that women must be held irresponsible for their decisions and actions.
So what's the point of any kind of representation then, except for you and your ilk? Eventually people who don't find that the system works to their advantage will advocate for a different one. Women will want security over liberty, the poor redistribution, minorities special consideration, etc. So it boils down to libertarian tyranny. Liberty for all, ruthless repression for those who oppose it, and ultimately, liberty for the powerful, paternalism (at best) for the rest. Might as well be clear about it.
- Voting is not liberty. Voting is merely a tool. Liberty is an end. And as the Founding Fathers' distrust of democracy aka "mob rule" shows, the expansion of voting privileges is not synonymous with the expansion of liberty. Quite the opposite, as it happens.
- Not being permitted to vote is not a lack of agency. A new US immigrant does not have voting rights, and yet he remains fully responsible for any crimes he commits as well as any taxes and debts he must pay.
- Most people observably act against their own best interests. The number of obese and overweight people proves that people do not eat to their own advantage, therefore it is naive to the point of foolishness to claim that they always vote to their own advantage.
Maximizing liberty for all does not mean maximizing liberty for every single individual, for the obvious reason that many individuals hate human liberty and wish to constrain it. If you would have liberty, then, it is necessary to distinguish between those who love liberty and will defend it, and those who hate liberty and wish to destroy it. There is no contradiction there, in fact, logic absolutely dictates that maximizing liberty can only come about by actively defending liberty against its foes.
For various reasons, most women are naturally opposed to liberty. They instinctively attempt to restrict the actions, speech, and even thoughts of others. Therefore, they cannot be permitted influence in any society that wishes to remain even remotely free for long. Past political philosophers understood this, as do modern politicians; it is not an accident that women's suffrage and proportional representation is literally the first point in the Fascist program.
And it does not take either a genius or a PhD to recognize that there are few movements that hate human liberty more thoroughly than feminism.
Women were able to vote in the Soviet Union and Ba'athist Iraq, but how much liberty did they enjoy? I want women to be free, which is precisely why I assert that they should not be permitted to vote. They are far too inclined to vote themselves into chains. Besides, in a West that is presently ruled by an unelected European Commission on one side of the Atlantic and an unaccountable bi-factional ruling party on the other, it is ludicrous to pretend that anyone's vote, male or female, counts for anything anymore anyhow.
44 comments:
Women also voted Hitler into office. The men overwhelmingly voted against him and the women overwhelmingly for him.
If you want to know why feminist women are drawn to Islam even though on the outside it seems to be harsh to them...it's also a form of tyranny.
This is good. It's important to realise the early Fascist Manifesto was quite progressive in many aspects, and while Mussolini in rising to power made many promises to women (as he did to many other constituencies), not least of all was the right to vote, in practice Fascism in Italy (and National Socialism in Germany) quite sensibly imposed on females the traditional roles. It can be said that Fascism and National Socialism used women as tools in achieving power, flattering and catering to them when it suited them. Voting, after all, is overrated.
Women also voted Hitler into office. The men overwhelmingly voted against him and the women overwhelmingly for him.
That's simply not true. Women did favor him, but less heavily than they favor Democrats in the USA. Men supported him as well. I've done fairly extensive research on this and the information isn't great.
Remember, the main alternative was the SPD, the socialists, which also had a lot of female appeal.
Quibbles aside, my main complaint with what you say is that most *men* I talk to these days clearly don't want freedom any more than women do. I read you as saying that because of the default "security" concern of women, as a group it is harder to find consistent defenders of freedom among them. But I don't know that most men I meet have any clearer grasp of the issue. And clearly men were involved in the other obvious freedom catastrophes of history as well. French, Chinese and Soviet Union as the most obvious examples. I have always taken it that freedom itself is the difficult concept, regardless of gender.
Dwagoner, thats true to a point, which is why the founders didnt allow most men to vote either. However,if you want to see a modern day example of the disparity, take a look at Scotland. The women overwhelmingly voted to stay a part of the UK.
Only feminine men are against liberty, which is why male leftists are disgusting. To men and women alike. The leftist knows he wont gain the trust of most masculine men, so he caters to women. Its easier and he can rely entirely on rhetoric.
Women just have no business in the public sphere. They ruin everything and operate on fear.
Scottish independence was just voted down less than six months ago due to women voters. Men voters were in favor of Scottish independence. Shocking, yet barely made the news. Most newscasters, being women now, simply reported how the results were good for Scotland.
Quibbles aside, my main complaint with what you say is that most *men* I talk to these days clearly don't want freedom any more than women do.
That too is a problem. But you have to start somewhere, and men are more amenable to liberty than women. Most men are heavily feminized these days. There will always be evil and tyrannical men, who can only be defeated by liberty-loving men. The women will not fight that battle.
You need to learn to think rationally, not react and get sucked into the idiot "yes, but" line of non-thought.
Regarding Hitler, he had an overwhelming majority of men and women voters. Even nearly 98% of Austrians favored their country being annexed by Germany, despite movies like Sound of Music implying otherwise.
I am still not following this. The reasoning that actions can be denied in order to maximize liberty for all, can be applied to any action that you make your cost benefit analysis to.
For example, if sex slavery were a serious problem then outlawing prostitution would greatly increase liberty for the slaves, while creating a minor reduction in liberty for the johns.
The reasoning that actions can be denied in order to maximize liberty for all, can be applied to any action that you make your cost benefit analysis to.
Sure. But voting is different for two reasons. Voting is connected to governance in a way that prostitution is not. Moreover, you're still conflating things. Sex slavery is not prostitution. Slavery is already illegal and women freely volunteer for prostitution; the brothels turn away more women than they hire.
Banning prostitution would be a huge reduction in liberty for both prostitutes and johns alike.
Ironically, women's suffrage encourages female prostitution. As more women have to support themselves, more young women prefer to do it easily, on their backs.
"That's simply not true. Women did favor him, but less heavily than they favor Democrats in the USA. Men supported him as well. I've done fairly extensive research on this and the information isn't great.
Remember, the main alternative was the SPD, the socialists, which also had a lot of female appeal."
Actually women did vote Hitler in. And for that matter, Nazism (National Socialism) is no different than International Socialism (Communism). That's why Hitler said former Communists were to be immediately admitted to the Nazi Party. there was no difference between them. Nazism and Communism are both leftist and therefore feminine ideologies.
Women nearly had orgasms in Hitler's presence, just the way they did in Obama's presence. If women were not allowed to vote, the world would be a hell of a lot better.
Obama, Hitler and Women.
http://fathers-and-children-coalition.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-hitler-and-women-voters.html
If you really want to get down to it...there is very little difference between democracy, national socialism, and communism. Women get the chance to vote for the chains in each. The World Wars were just a horrible waste of men to see which tyranny was going to win out.
I am still not following this. The reasoning that actions can be denied in order to maximize liberty for all, can be applied to any action that you make your cost benefit analysis to.
For example, if sex slavery were a serious problem then outlawing prostitution would greatly increase liberty for the slaves, while creating a minor reduction in liberty for the johns.
First of all, your example is bad, as sex slavery and prostitution are not exactly the same thing. Sex slavery would be where someone is forced to sexually service others. Prostitution can be sex slavery, but it can also be where someone freely chooses to exchange sexual favors for money or other compensation. In a free society sex slavery would be illegal but freely chosen prostitution would be legal.
Now let's pick a definition of liberty. I generally consider liberty the freedom to do as you wish as long as you're not infringing on other's liberty. Many will recognize this as described in the old saying "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." This is not a perfect definition and does leave plenty of room for debate and interpretation on specifics (example, does my right to have a loud party infringe on my neighbor's right to enjoy the peace and quiet?) but it is a place to start. Since the ability to vote can lead to limiting other's liberty, then under this definition limiting or even getting rid of someone's ability to vote would not be limiting their liberty.
Actually women did vote Hitler in.
No, Bob, they didn't. Either provide the data or stop repeating a naked assertion. There isn't a single statistic relevant to the matter in the post you cited and I've read the footnoted column it references before, which states the opposite of your claim anyhow: "Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler."
Hitler had plenty of male support. The Nazi appeal to both sexes was more balanced than either the current Democratic or Republican parties.
I think that clarification of terms might foster this discussion a bit.
Freedom = Liberty + Power
Liberty is simply being left alone, the ability to live your life free of coercion, "freedom from." Power is the ability to do what you want, also a form of freedom, the "freedom to."
When somebody on the right hears the word "freedom," often without thinking he assumes he's hearing "liberty." Likewise, when a lefty hears freedom, she hears "power." Note the leftist-feminist emphasis on "empowerment."
Thus my quibble with Vox's statement: "Maximizing liberty for all does not mean maximizing liberty for every single individual, for the obvious reason that many individuals hate human liberty and wish to constrain it."
This statement would be perfectly correct were Vox to have used the word "freedom" instead of "liberty." Liberty CAN in fact be maximized for the vast majority of individuals, for my right to be left alone interferes not one whit with another's right to be left alone.
However, when "freedom" means "power", by necessity the maximization of "freedom" for one individual will lessen it for others. Obviously we can all have the "power" to cross the street without messing with anybody else, but to be "empowered" to make everybody else pay for your day care requires limiting the "liberty" of others to do what they wish with the fruits of their own labor.
Thus, when as a society we fight to maximize liberty for individuals, we decrease the effects of government coercion and become able to live in relative (albeit never perfect) harmony. However, when "freedom" is defined as "power," by necessity we will live under a state of continual conflict, a world in which one person's "right" to become "empowered" will perpetually infringe upon the liberties of others to say what they want and be left alone with their own resources to lead their lives as they so choose.
When we dedicate ourselves to liberty, we are all empowered to the extent that we don't infringe upon the rights of others. When we dedicate ourselves to empowerment, liberty will by necessity wither away for all of us but those select few we've deemed worthy of determining what's best for the rest of us.
~Martel
Vox -- "You need to learn to think rationally, not react and get sucked into the idiot 'yes, but' line of non-thought."
I am not sure how it is irrational to point out that most men today *agree* with women on how "freedom" should be curtailed in order to create "equality". As you said, you agree with the claim. Men provided women with the intellectual tools needed to undermine freedom and actively encouraged that line of thinking. Women couldn't have done it on their own. Removing women from the political equation doesn't help when the culture in America no longer supports freedom. To my mind, that is the more important issue and neither a "non-thought" nor "reactionary".
Freedom is frightening. You will always have to fight for it. The impulse to give in and be a part of the group and "let someone else do it" is too strong to deny in most people. But security is an illusion. "Free stuff" is an illusion. Someone always pays. The argument ultimately turns into reality vs. fantasy.
Imagine the world as it was. Look at the few woman run communitues in the world. Grass huts and next to zero technological advances. The men work and have sex and thats it. The women have multiple husbands. This is no coincidence. It's all connected.
We're born with such little freedom as human beings. To give up what little we have in exchange for co forting lies is absurd.
Dwagoner, you're all over the place, hence Vox's comment. You still arent getting it. You don't even understand the part of his comment you quoted.
I am not sure how it is irrational to point out that most men today *agree* with women on how "freedom" should be curtailed in order to create "equality".
They don't fully agree on average. It's a matter of degree. Most men aren't scared of liberty nearly as much as women are, especially single women. Removing women from the political equation certainly does help, even if it still leaves a lot of problems addressed.
I liked heatiste's comment of the day. It's tough to.be a woman. Imagine how hard it would be only getting a hard on when a woman was mean to you.
Beta males were always women's most reliable supporters. Of course women will vote beta support rather than earn it through beta companions, consequences to society be.damned.
I am not sure how it is irrational to point out that most men today *agree* with women on how "freedom" should be curtailed in order to create "equality".
The problem is that you're jumping around between "men I know" and "most men" and "just as many men as women" as if they're all the same thing. Men in general are not as quick to vote away their own freedoms as women are. Millions of exceptions don't change that. If women had never been given the vote, we would be freer than we currently are, and our political parties would not have shifted as far toward leftist tyranny.
That doesn't mean a male-only voting public would never vote away freedom. That's happened in the past, and could again. But the evidence suggests that women voting accelerates that process and makes it more certain.
Men think more like women regarding freedom because they're more feminized overall. Nevertheless, our natural inclinations tend more towards liberty.
--Martel
In manosphere terms, the problem with denying women the vote is how it's like failing a fitness test applied by reality. It's like insecure mate-guarding; a tacit admission that your skills and abilities are inferior to some other attractor in their lives.
If the competent, capable people you're supposedly messaging here can't, analogously speaking, hold frame against the immature tendency to vote collectivist over individualist -- immaturity being what it really is, not 'female'; that's the primary common characteristic between both the males and the females who do it -- denying women the vote because they'll do it wrong is preemptively admitting the challenge of making sure they do it right is too much for you.
It's also a fitness test from reality in that the tendency of the immature to vote collectivist over individualist is a similarly a challenge to the mature to not only maintain standards but grow and improve.
Denying women the vote is admitting you're not alpha enough outside of the ballot box to keep them in line inside of it.
MATT -- "Dwagoner, you're all over the place, hence Vox's comment. You still arent getting it. You don't even understand the part of his comment you quoted."
I am not sure that I am all over the place, just disagreeing on which issue is important and amplifying on what I thought might have been confusing in what I said in the first place. However, I do agree that I don't understand the part of his comment that I quoted. Trying to understand is why I quoted it and commented on it.
Denying women the vote is admitting you're not alpha enough outside of the ballot box to keep them in line inside of it.
That is an absolutely retarded take on it. Socio-sexuality does not apply to populations. Totalitarian rule is not alpha. In fact, totalitarian rulers are usually of relatively low socio-sexual rank.
Denying women the vote is admitting you're not alpha enough outside of the ballot box to keep them in line inside of it.
Are you high. Denying them the vote is keeping them in line. It's simply ignoring their opinions.
cailcorishev -- "The problem is that you're jumping around between "men I know" and "most men" and "just as many men as women" as if they're all the same thing."
Thanks for taking the time to clarify for me. If all that you and Vox are saying is that the process accelerates and makes it more certain, then we do not disagree. However, some of what you said does not make sense to me.
When you say: "Men in general are not as quick to vote away their own freedoms as women are. Millions of exceptions don't change that." I am not sure what evidence you would point to for your generalization. It seems that the lessons of history disagree with you. First, there are the obvious events like the French revolution and even older examples like the English Civil War, leaving aside all of the modern examples. Even the history of the Constitution and First Congress of the United States are about the same struggle to limit freedom for some. Second, it masks the fragility of the Enlightenment era concept of political freedom. Non-freedom is the norm in history.
"If women had never been given the vote, we would be freer than we currently are, and our political parties would not have shifted as far toward leftist tyranny."
The left is far older than that.
But no matter, I clearly don't have the context that folks on this blog do and don't want you to have to spend more time explaining it to me. I'll go back to silence now.
As you were...
Acksiom,
Denying women the ability to to vote is telling them "NO". It's the societal equivalent of telling them you aren't interested in their opinion.
If anything refusing to allow women to control is alpha..
@ Acksiom said... Denying women the vote is admitting you're not alpha enough outside of the ballot box to keep them in line inside of it.
______
Both absurd and observably false. It is alpha chasing hypergamous tendencies that lead women to vote for security over liberty. They vote themselves the beta bux so they can chase alpha fux. With liberty, they bear the consequences of their choices, which means alpha fux are a riskier proposition than being a wife to a dependable beta.
The greek letters are flying. It's simpler than that.
Denying women the right to vote is because they weren't created by God to be put in positions of authority, leadership, or making important decisions. They were created to be helpers to men. Once men started giving up these positions to placate the uproar women had (because of their own desires to be in positions of authority and leadership) is when problems start.
When you say: "Men in general are not as quick to vote away their own freedoms as women are. Millions of exceptions don't change that." I am not sure what evidence you would point to for your generalization. It seems that the lessons of history disagree with you. First, there are the obvious events like the French revolution and even older examples like the English Civil War, leaving aside all of the modern examples.
Leaving aside all of the modern examples is like asking, "So, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you like the play?" You don't get to leave them all out, because most voting has taken place in modern times. Left-wing/socialist movements always seem to press for their era's version of "women's rights," including women's voting when that's conceivable to anyone. Is that just a coincidence? Do they always do that for no reason, or do they know something you don't?
It shows up in American voting patterns. Not only are women more likely than men to vote Democrat, but married women are more likely than married men, single women > single men, black women > black men, etc. It shows up every way you break it down. And before you say, "Yeah, but the Republicans aren't really conservative," that's true, but they're perceived as the more conservative party. People of a conservative bent who think of voting as either useful or a civic duty tend to vote Republican; people of a liberal bent tend to vote Democrat. Women are more likely than men, in general, to fall into the latter group.
Go to a college campus and see who's at left-wing sit-ins. Go into a church and see who's pushing for the church to soften its doctrines. Go into a corporation and see who's running the HR department and cracking down on offensive speech. Sure, you'll find some men in all those places, but you'll find more women, and the more women you find, the more strident they'll tend to be.
Do I have mathematical proof of any of that? Of course not, though the voting numbers are out there if you search. But the evidence is all over, for those with eyes to see.
Totalitarian rule is not alpha. In fact, totalitarian rulers are usually of relatively low socio-sexual rank.
Yeah, they tend to be Gammas. Bitchy, nitpicking, rule-bound, jealous, and resentful. And, to top it off, the most like women.
"I want women to be free"
Why do you hate women, Vox? You might as well say you want children or low-IQ blacks to be free.
- Koanic
I have to guess the misguided was a woman. Though, these days, telling the two sexes apart has become much more difficult, having nothing to do with hair length or self-induced starvation. Whatever. Problem is, the genie of democracy uber alles is loose. Getting that back into the bottle will take a lot of blood. It probably won't succeed. Corporations, government, and foreign nations are all on the other side, at least at the top. Only the bottom, and real 1%, are on that side, population wise. Women, in that regard, don't count.
Vox, your posting here is the reason why I like reading your blogs even if I don't always agree with you.
"Whenever you see an organization with the word Mothers in the title. Stand by for a massive assault on your personal freedom."
What about the group "Mothers for More Prostitution"?
What about the group "Mothers for More Prostitution?
Doubtless they will make it mandatory.
Women voting or not voting seem to have the same result. Proporting to give equal rights to women is a standard practice of communist nations. Giving work to women encourages enslavement to the state factories and impact the ability to have a functional family as a traditional one is not feasible. That's essentially the feminist goal. We come full circle.
I want women to be free...Whether they want to be or not. Somewhat of a paradox. Like the old biblical custom of slavery. After a set period, the slave could choose to remain with is master. I personally wouldn't mind if women chose servitude as long as they were not forcing it on the rest of us too.
Women: I want birth control, abortion, and health care.
Men: Good. go get all you want.
Women: I want you to pay for it.
My favorite voters are the Dem hedonist types that want all the liberty to do whatever they damn well please and somebody else to pay for it. I also really enjoy the non taxpaying voters who vote for every new tax that comes around. It's human nature at work in my state. And getting in touch w/ nature is beautiful.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.