The tongue-cluckers are spazzing out about #RepealThe19th trending on Twitter. I hope none were former Sanders supporters -- he would have crushed the wicked witch if only men had voted, according to the exit polls. Same if only whites had voted, or only young people had voted.
Only letting young people vote? That'll go nowhere, and society would collapse.
Only letting white people vote? Not realistic, since tribal politics would explode.
Only letting men vote? That's not so unrealistic. Women had to wait 50 years after black men to get the vote. Women didn't strike reformers as the more important group to let vote.
We've had good and bad presidents, and presidents of both major parties, before and after the 19th Amendment, but it would be nice to repeal.
As long as it doesn't substantially alter which party is in power, then who cares? Unlike blacks, who are solid Democrats, women do not form their own distinct voting bloc. If you're single, young, never married, no kids, urban professional, you vote totally opposite of middle-aged, married with children, living in the suburbs.
Women don't raise important new issues from what men would. Men care about health care, education, etc. They're not women's issues. And again where someone stands on those issues is not determined by their sex but other kinship factors like marital status, parental status, residence status, and so on.
Repealing the 19th would, however, greatly improve the quality of the political process -- far fewer roller-coasters of emotion among a fickle electorate. Not as much drama, hysteria, and bipolar meltdowns. We'll still have plenty of those coming from the wussy men anyway.
Campaigns would not have to cater to personal appeal so much, and could focus more on the issues themselves.
Women simply were not meant to take part in a large crowd of strangers who need to be herded into coalitions in order to govern the public sphere. They're meant for small intimate groups of familiar faces at a local level, such as the PTA.
Since women do not form their own distinct voting bloc, they are more of a redundant pool of voters, and could be safely removed if not needed. We'd still be left with tens of millions of men voting, so no, we don't need a redundant pool just in case the first pool fails to show up.
I know it's purely pie-in-the-sky, but it would make the electoral process itself so much better. Women could still raise issues, form advocacy groups, and the like. Prohibition was largely women-run, before they could vote (for whatever that's worth). Just not a group that campaigns, polling companies, and media organizations would have to devote much attention to.
Related post: Trump ushers in a re-masculinization of the electorate
For years there have been clickbait articles where womyn writers would tell us about the wonders of disenfranchising men, specifically white men, from voting, from obtaining political positions, etc. When it gets turned around, the fury and outrage from the same people is hilarious to watch.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Trump needs to win. Under a Hillary administration, #RepealThe19th would be considered internet hate speech and the propagators would be fined or jailed like they would be now if they lived in Europe or Canada. The jilted, barren, and terminally dry catladies (who are likely on some form of anxiety or antipsychotic medication) don't deserve to determine who wins in an election. The future of America is more important than how hurt their feelings are when they see some fake baked alpha male talking about building a wall to keep tens of millions of immigrants out.
Semi-related, this is a great quote for triggering shitlib feminists:
ReplyDelete“I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”
- Queen Victoria
I'd definitely put rolling back women's franchise on the agenda of restoring a healthy patriarchal society. Sterile, middle-aged "cat ladies" show especially bad judgment about politics, and they should not get anywhere near the ballot box.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, Agnostic, have you thought much about the overall success of the Enlightenment after Western societies have acted on its ideas for close to 250 years now? Do we have enough of a baseline of experience now to show which parts of the Enlightenment's project for transforming society don't work, so that we should discard them?
BTW, sex doesn't look like a social construct to leftist degenerates when it comes to rolling back women's franchise does it? Otherwise the newly deprived women could claim transgenderism and try to get their right to vote reinstated.
ReplyDeleteThe one restriction that would make the greatest difference would be only letting married people vote. Unmarried white men are less likely to vote trump and republican in general than married white women and it's not just because of the correlation with age and income. IQ tests or tax paying, property owning or educational thresholds would only take votes off the working class whites so important to the anti globalist side in every country but a marriage ban would do a very good job of excluding the rootless parasites of all races and classes.
ReplyDeleteThat would transparently bias things in favor of Republicans and natalists, rather than simply removing a redundant group like women. So would go nowhere (and no such test has been implemented anywhere).
ReplyDeleteAlso too easy to fake and circumvent the natalists. It would simply lead to sham civil unions for all of what you consider parasites.
You can't fake being male.
And it is just a correlation with age. Divorced and separated men are more pro-Trump than married women.
ReplyDeleteReuters, month of September overall, Trump vs. Clinton:
Divorced men: 44-35
Married women: 41-37
Whites only:
Divorced men: 50-26
Married women: 45-31
Trump's speech today throws down the gauntlet on so many things. Naturally the media outrage is even greater than usual if that can be imagined. The media seems beside themselves that someone is standing up to them. It's a good gamble as well because trust in the media is at record lows. People are tired of being lied to by a system that wants them beaten and broken down. That's why Trump will still win regardless of scandal: it's about repudiating a system that is fundamentally broken and rotten at its core.
ReplyDelete"Unmarried white men are less likely to vote trump and republican in general than married white women and it's not just because of the correlation with age and income. IQ tests or tax paying, property owning or educational thresholds would only take votes off the working class whites so important to the anti globalist side in every country but a marriage ban would do a very good job of excluding the rootless parasites of all races and classes."
ReplyDeleteMarried women are the very definition of "parasite" imbecile.
More importantly, marriage is a ludicrous sham, at least it is in 21st century America. Not only that, but it's also a suicidal endeavor wherein you sign a contract giving a woman (fickle, petty creatures) the right to cuck you while still getting the house you bought and force you to pay her alimony and child support. Even if the child isn't yours.
Tradcons need to be exterminated.
Divorced men can vote if they pass a simple test. Just answer:
ReplyDelete"Is marriage a ludicrous sham perpetuated by gold-digging harpies who only want to cuck you with some hot alpha dude who has good genes?"