Saturday, January 7, 2017

Karol Traven on Women and Voting

Guest post by Karol Traven
------------
One reason that it was foolish to give women the vote is that it was never necessary. 

Voting, properly understood, is an alternative to fighting over things, violent conflict. And voting works fine as long as this is understood. 

So between a bunch of guys, who understand that if they win, they can't impose terms on the losers that are too onerous, or they will resume the violent conflict; but so long as they don't, the losers will find even an electoral defeat less costly than a violent victory, voting can work great. It's a win win.

But women don't fight. So it was never necessary to cut them into the deal. It was a pure indulgence to do so. And they don't understand that it is an alternative to violence. They just think it's magic "tee hee, we mark the paper and we get what we want." So they demonstrate no restraint, and no awareness. And they're establishing conditions which make violence necessary, inevitable, and severe.
------------
Afterword:
I've always looked at the sexes and politics this way: Females have a natural authority within a family unit, and they're inclined to look at politics simply as a broadening of family dynamics. That's why they're always so concerned about taking care of everybody, and why they can't distinguish between protecting people's rights and giving them free stuff. Essentially, in politics, women treat the populace like millions of children.

Men, on the other hand, traditionally were entirely in charge of politics, that is, the maintenance of relations between families, which comes down to relationships between men who represent their own individual families. Consequently, men are not inclined to think of the population as a set of children, but as a set of families, and men want a polity that makes their own family strong and self-suffcient, and therefore operate so as to make all families so.'

This leads men to be suspicious of authority, to opt for less rather than more government, and to want laws to strengthen the family, not weaken it. Obviously, since women started voting, male politicians have tended to become more like women — lots of welfare and interference and feel-good legislating — in order to please female voters.

If you think about all the government overreaches, from welfare to gun control to immigration to subsidizing "good" things, the effect of the female vote becomes glaringly apparent.
----------
Quibcag: The girl gesturing to the ocean is Lum of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)., who is certainly not a feminist.

2 comments:

  1. As with many other problems facing this country, there are plenty of good solutions but all of them require some group to give up power. For this reason, none of them will ever see the light of day.

    I always joke that one of my first acts after I become the semi-benovelent dictator of the U.S. will be to revise voting laws so that only persons having a net positive income and who do not directly work for the national government will be allowed to vote in national elections. That should shake things up a bit and lend an air of a representative government to my regime.

    Luke

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  2. Democracy is the wrecker of all that men build. America was founded as a Republic. The Founding Fathers gave you a Republic, "if you can keep it". The US Constitution gives no restrictions to citizens at all. Its sole purpose was to restrict the powers of the Government. It should be understood that the basic clause of the US Constitution is that the Federal Government only has the powers given to it, and that all the rest belong unequivocally to the people. The US Constitution is only fit to rule over a responsible and moral people, and that's why America is doomed.
    Giving women the vote was done on the same specious claim that the wreckers do anything. "Fairness". Not letting everyone in on it is supposedly unfair. Women, invaders, freaks, the insane, and every other group not known for understanding shit. That's the enemy and their core "constituency".
    When women say they don't want to have children, or take care of the house so they can become nurses, waitresses and schoolmarms, you can see why letting them choose anything is stupid. These dumb broads are basically doing the exact same shit they were before, only now they do it for people who don't care about them for low wages, and don't won their own home. You've gone nowhere baby.

    ReplyDelete