The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Why should we repeal this amendment? The most common argument is that the majority of women tend to vote for leftist candidates and causes. I would add another argument, which is that the state's core functions are those provided by the police, courts, and defense agencies, all of which are male domains. Most policemen, soldiers, judges, and prosecutors are men. The state functions typically carried out by women, such as teaching, are functions that women could better perform in the home. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard writes:
(Imagine if only physically fit men were allowed to vote. Political parties' "get out the vote" efforts would involve encouraging their supporters to put down the fork and start lifting. The increase in testosterone flowing through the electorate could have an interesting effect on politics.)
Some will argue, "Women are affected by what government policies, and therefore need to have the right to vote." It is still men who bear the brunt of bad policies. Men are more likely to die in wars, to be the victims of violent crimes, and to be sentenced to prison (often for such offenses as selling drugs in order to have money with which to impress women or support their families). Since men own most of the property and earn most of the money in society, and are in the highest tax brackets, they also pay most of the taxes.
Some will ask, Why would women vote to abolish their own suffrage? Let's suppose that 55% of women are leftist, and the other 45% conservative. If conservative women believe that abolishing women's suffrage would help the conservative cause, then that's 45% of the female voters who have a reason to vote to abolish women's suffrage.
At that point, it just becomes necessary to convince slightly more than 55% of men that abolishing suffrage is a good idea. Since men tend to be more conservative than women, that's not necessarily an impossible task.
We might ask ourselves, How were men convinced to enact the 19th Amendment in the first place? Probably progressives thought it would help their agenda, and manginas and white knights supported the idea on principle, or because they thought virtue signalling would get them pussy. So what happens when voters are in a more conservative mood, and when men and women no longer support women's suffrage on principle, and when we have taught the manginas and white knights that they need to learn game rather than try to impress women with virtue signalling?
How strongly do women really feel about women's suffrage? Might not some of them be glad to be relieved of the responsibility of voting? Women often like to tell men, "Honey, there's a spider in the shower" or "The roof needs to be fixed" and use sex roles as a way of avoiding unpleasant or challenging tasks. When I go to the polls, I usually hear women complaining about how long the line is, while the men are more stoical.
Abolishing women's suffrage would give women an opportunity to unload on men the task of staying informed about politics and getting involved. When women are displeased with what a politician is doing, they'll be able to simply tell their husbands, "Honey, please take care of that," rather than actually becoming activists themselves. When elections have bad results, they'll be able to wash their hands of it and say, "Hey, I had nothing to do with that."
In reality, though, as traditional sex roles are restored, women won't be the ones paying taxes, attending universities, holding government jobs, etc., so their tendency and perceived need to concern themselves with politics will be diminished. Abolishing women's suffrage will further reinforce traditional sex roles by serving as a reminder that men and women have different strengths and domains.
The low rates of women running for office are telling. The large number of candidates running unopposed, especially at the state and local levels, shows that women's lack of involvement isn't because men aren't giving them an opportunity to be nominated. Clearly they're not all that engaged in the process, despite how much they repeat what society expects everyone to say, which is that participation in elections is important.
It's also noteworthy that before the 19th Amendment was passed, women already had most of the rights they wanted, such as the right to own property, to manage their own affairs, etc. The historical record shows that when men are in charge, they don't mind giving women whatever freedom they think will be in their best interest. The past century and a half has been characterized by men increasingly bending over backwards to give women whatever they said they wanted, in an effort to please them, and finding that it didn't make them happy. Should it surprise us at all if women say they want suffrage, but actually want something entirely different?
In politics, as in game, what matters are women's actions, not their words. When the time is ripe, let's put the issue of women's suffrage on the ballot, and see what women do in the secrecy of the voting booth. Women are followers by nature, but it is also in their nature to shit test. It is up to us men to provide leadership and stand our ground with integrity and firm belief in the rightness of our cause, despite the cries of "misogynist," in order to earn women's confidence that we are strong enough to take care of them without their needing to hold the reins of power.
Why should we repeal this amendment? The most common argument is that the majority of women tend to vote for leftist candidates and causes. I would add another argument, which is that the state's core functions are those provided by the police, courts, and defense agencies, all of which are male domains. Most policemen, soldiers, judges, and prosecutors are men. The state functions typically carried out by women, such as teaching, are functions that women could better perform in the home. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard writes:
Quote:Murray Rothbard Wrote:
Perhaps the leading argument for democracy is that it substitutes "ballots for bullets": that it replaces the inconvenient and disruptive processes of violent change by peaceful changes expressing the majority will. . . . . In the first place, physical power is manifestly not equally distributed. In a test of combat, women, old people, and the sick would do very badly. On the peaceful change argument, therefore, there is no justification whatever for giving these physically feeble groups the vote. And not only would they have to be barred from voting, but so also would we have to bar 4-F's [ineligible for the draft because of medical problems] and all citizens who could not pass a test for physical combat fitness. On the other hand, there should obviously be no literacy test, since literacy has no relation to a man’s combat potential. In addition to barring all those not fit for combat from voting, we would clearly have to give plural votes to all who have been militarily trained (such as soldiers and policemen), for it is obvious that a group of highly-trained fighters could easily defeat a far more numerous group of amateurs, even if equally robust.
(Imagine if only physically fit men were allowed to vote. Political parties' "get out the vote" efforts would involve encouraging their supporters to put down the fork and start lifting. The increase in testosterone flowing through the electorate could have an interesting effect on politics.)
Some will argue, "Women are affected by what government policies, and therefore need to have the right to vote." It is still men who bear the brunt of bad policies. Men are more likely to die in wars, to be the victims of violent crimes, and to be sentenced to prison (often for such offenses as selling drugs in order to have money with which to impress women or support their families). Since men own most of the property and earn most of the money in society, and are in the highest tax brackets, they also pay most of the taxes.
Some will ask, Why would women vote to abolish their own suffrage? Let's suppose that 55% of women are leftist, and the other 45% conservative. If conservative women believe that abolishing women's suffrage would help the conservative cause, then that's 45% of the female voters who have a reason to vote to abolish women's suffrage.
At that point, it just becomes necessary to convince slightly more than 55% of men that abolishing suffrage is a good idea. Since men tend to be more conservative than women, that's not necessarily an impossible task.
We might ask ourselves, How were men convinced to enact the 19th Amendment in the first place? Probably progressives thought it would help their agenda, and manginas and white knights supported the idea on principle, or because they thought virtue signalling would get them pussy. So what happens when voters are in a more conservative mood, and when men and women no longer support women's suffrage on principle, and when we have taught the manginas and white knights that they need to learn game rather than try to impress women with virtue signalling?
How strongly do women really feel about women's suffrage? Might not some of them be glad to be relieved of the responsibility of voting? Women often like to tell men, "Honey, there's a spider in the shower" or "The roof needs to be fixed" and use sex roles as a way of avoiding unpleasant or challenging tasks. When I go to the polls, I usually hear women complaining about how long the line is, while the men are more stoical.
Abolishing women's suffrage would give women an opportunity to unload on men the task of staying informed about politics and getting involved. When women are displeased with what a politician is doing, they'll be able to simply tell their husbands, "Honey, please take care of that," rather than actually becoming activists themselves. When elections have bad results, they'll be able to wash their hands of it and say, "Hey, I had nothing to do with that."
In reality, though, as traditional sex roles are restored, women won't be the ones paying taxes, attending universities, holding government jobs, etc., so their tendency and perceived need to concern themselves with politics will be diminished. Abolishing women's suffrage will further reinforce traditional sex roles by serving as a reminder that men and women have different strengths and domains.
The low rates of women running for office are telling. The large number of candidates running unopposed, especially at the state and local levels, shows that women's lack of involvement isn't because men aren't giving them an opportunity to be nominated. Clearly they're not all that engaged in the process, despite how much they repeat what society expects everyone to say, which is that participation in elections is important.
It's also noteworthy that before the 19th Amendment was passed, women already had most of the rights they wanted, such as the right to own property, to manage their own affairs, etc. The historical record shows that when men are in charge, they don't mind giving women whatever freedom they think will be in their best interest. The past century and a half has been characterized by men increasingly bending over backwards to give women whatever they said they wanted, in an effort to please them, and finding that it didn't make them happy. Should it surprise us at all if women say they want suffrage, but actually want something entirely different?
In politics, as in game, what matters are women's actions, not their words. When the time is ripe, let's put the issue of women's suffrage on the ballot, and see what women do in the secrecy of the voting booth. Women are followers by nature, but it is also in their nature to shit test. It is up to us men to provide leadership and stand our ground with integrity and firm belief in the rightness of our cause, despite the cries of "misogynist," in order to earn women's confidence that we are strong enough to take care of them without their needing to hold the reins of power.