Friday, March 1, 2013

Suffering from Suffrage

Remember when they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18?  Like so many stupid ideas, everybody was wildly enthusiastic about it, despite the rather obvious fact that most people under 21 (especially nowadays) are far too ignorant to vote wisely, even if they've become emotionally mature, which, in reality, very few have.

Back in the days of the Founders, when people matured a lot younger than they do now, people under 21 still weren't considered mature or experienced enough to vote, even though most of them were self-sufficient and married with families by that age.  These days, 30 is the new 21, and most Americans are still effectively children well into their twenties.

Another group the Founders didn't think should be voting was women.  Oh, there were women around in those days (most likely more per capita than there are now) who could have voted very responsibly, but they were a  minority.  The Founders knew that women, as a group, just didn't have what it took to make political decisions, which of course is what voting is.

American women have been voting for almost a century now, and the results is that we have far too many vacuous pretty-boy politicians (starting with JFK), that very few men are inclined to vote for, and not nearly enough bald-headed competent old sons-of-bitches who know how to run things.  Women don't like guys like that.  They like soap-opera guys with good hair.

Needless to say, a look at our leaders suggests that we have way too many people voting.  We can start fixing that by eliminating the female half.  Bob Wallace explains.  This is a reprint from his site at http://uncabob.blogspot.com/, which I visit daily, and you should too:


Women Should Not be Allowed to Vote



“Carrying on a fantasy of defending the dignity of ladies is absurd in the absence of dignified ladies.” - Matt Parrot

Before women got the vote, many intelligent women did not want them to get it. I ain't surprised that smarter women today want the vote taken from women. When it comes right down to it, women don't like other women, contrary to all the hoo-ha. And the smartest women like men more than women, most of whom they consider snarky, butthurt, and hysterical.
The smarter women in the past thought they had more important things to do than get involved in politics such as raising intelligent, educated children instead of tossing them in public schools...which today have been destroyed by female teachers and principals...and the manginas were support them.
I've known enough women to realize why they have been denied the vote: many of them are natural socialists, although most of them don't know what a socialist is. One of my girlfriends, who became a libertarian, believed many women are natural socialists, and she believed it because she had been one before she overcame it.
I also know another woman who regrets her several lost opportunities with men because of her female-nonsense vegetarianism and anti-gun stance (she once tried to turn her cat into a vegetarian but fortunately gave that up when she saw the cat getting sick). By the time she gave up those things (along with her liberalism in general) she had found she was way past the Wall and was now alone.
All these women I have known, who are natural socialists, operated on the same irrational, fuzzy-minded beliefs: I am supposed to get back ten times more than I give.

In other words, people are supposed to support and subsidize them, but their support and subsidizing others is supposed to be a fraction of what they get.

I recently met a very intelligent woman who told me she was for national health care. When I asked her if she understood supply and demand, she admitted she did not.

I told her that while the government can control supply, it cannot control demand. It can never control demand. Since under national health care, people will perceive cost as dropping to zero, demand will skyrocket.

Since the government knows this will happen, rationing will happen, because of shortages. Sarah Palin, who understood this, correctly called these rationing bodies “death panels.”

I’m not sure this woman believed me, but when I asked her if she would take a 50% cut in pay to subsidize everyone’s health care, would she do it? She told me “that wouldn’t happen,” which of course was not the question,

I see the same beliefs among women when it comes to not understanding they cannot have a career and children at the same time. “If you quit work, and believe by law that your job should be waiting for you when you come back,” I’ve told them, “do you realize you are forcing your coworkers to cover your job, not get paid for it, and support your with their money if you get pregnancy pay?”

They’ve never looked at it that way, and don’t seem to think it’s unfair until I ask them if they should be forced to take a large pay cut to subsidize other women taking off work for two years to have a kid. They’re not for that because of what I wrote: I should get ten times more than I give.

Socialism is a female thing, even if men believe in it: we should by law be forced to share and do favors for another. We should be happy to do it and not feel resentful. And of course, socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.

Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our evil government. Had it stayed out of the free market, I wouldn’t be surprised if the average salary would be $90,000 a year.

I estimate now less than five percent of men can support a family on their own. Yet I see meet women who think they supposed to be supported by men and are in a rage at them this isn’t happening (they’re also in rage when some guy making $75,000 a year is 5’6” and married to an Asian woman, which is what happened to one of my dentists).

Since this support can no longer happen, what these women do is marry the State. They become wards of the State and live on food stamps, in subsidized housing, with a medical card, and aid for their children. A life like this does not get better; it gets worse.
These women rarely realize they are still dependent women: they're just dependent on the government. That's why I said they're married to the State. They are still under a "patriarchy" although they are clueless to this fact. They are oblivious to the fact they expect chivalry from both the State and men...when men get little and sometimes nothing in return.
Overwhelmingly, it's about safety and security (both non-existent) over freedom. As Fred Reed wrote, "Males value freedom over security; women, security over freedom. Men love venturing into the wild, whether in Silicon Valley or unexplored jungles, if any; women do not. Men are fiercely competitive; women, concerned with order and comity. Men are physical, enjoying, even needing, rough sports; women are not. To a man of my generation the country today is unbearably controlled, restricted, safe, and feminized." 'nuf said.
Since men created civilization, and science and technology, the advances in these things will be slowed down and in some ways destroyed, all in the interest of a false "security" wanted by the silliest of women, and the stupid, ignorant men who support them. And again: since men create and provide these things to women, women are dependent on men. They still look up to men, but it's the worst men: politicians.

"Deluded women worshiping the patriarchy"

One woman I know quite well believes it is all supposed to be free for her: free food, free utilities, a free apartment, free nice furniture. Of course, she is married to the State.

That’s why women have traditionally been denied the vote. A society run solely by women – a socialist society – would be a destroyed society.

4 comments:

  1. Capt Capitalism has some pretty solid evidence (aka charty goodness!) that suggests the average income would be $94,000 if the government had left things well enough alone in the 50s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to have to look for that chart. Then again maybe I shouldn't when I think of how I'm currently making just under $40 grand a year while working my ass off in school so that in 5 years I can hopefully be making $130 grand.

      Delete
  2. Actually, we'd be making less, but it would have much higher purchasing power.

    Women are concerned about creating safety for their kids, men are concerned abo0ut proving their fitness to be fathers. Women only have one job, men have two, keep the kids fed and prove they are tough enough to protect the
    "nest."

    ReplyDelete
  3. The voting age was lowered to 18 at a time when 18 year old men were being drafted and sent to war in a place called Vietnam and/or sent to stand guard against the Evil Soviet Empire. If you're old enough to get your ass shot off for your country you're old enough to vote on which political (mis)leaders send you off to do so.

    ReplyDelete