Friday, February 05, 2010

Thoughtcrime of the Day: Women should have the vote taken away from them

while there is still a Western Civilization left to save.

Socialism. Where did it come from? We see it eating like an acid into the foundations of our entire civilisation, corroding initiative, personal responsibility, individual and corporate courage, family life... it is everywhere. But how did we end up with it in nearly every western country? We could look at the history of the Great Change in western countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, N. Zealand,) from governments based on individual liberties, Common Law, objective reality...all that manly stuff, to what we have now: the nanny state.

But I think we have it wrong. I think we shouldn't be calling it the Nanny State. I think it should be called the Daddy State.

I was discussing this with a friend the other night and he said something that he knew I already agreed with, that it is the fault of the female vote. When did all this Fabianism get itself hooked into the political structure? When did we start thinking that government should hold your hand and do things for you? Even when you've grown up, left home and got your own apartment, the Daddy State should be coming over and fixing things for you and buying you groceries.

Socialism is a chick thing. As a private characteristic of the feminine mind it is right and good for women to want to be looked after. It's wired into us from our hunter-gatherer days. We need men to do the heavy lifting. It's a good thing for women to have the instinct to want to be looked after by a big strong man who can ward off cave bears and hunt the mammoths.

But feminism has used that natural need, the thing that makes us like and want men and that makes marriage desirable, and turned it against both men and children and ultimately against women. Feminism, you will note, has not actually accomplished anything but misery and destruction. A counterfeit freedom, exchanged for all the things we used to think made our lives real and meaningful.

I mentioned that one of the triumphs of feminism is to teach women that they should not get married to an individual man. Marriage, so the legend goes, is slavery, particularly after the kids come. Feminism reveals its Marxist origins when it says that women should instead marry the State. Men leave, we are told, and leave us holding the child-rearing bag alone. Much better to be married to the state. The state will never abandon you.

Indeed, women who divorce are often encouraged by social workers to either take up welfare as a replacement marriage, or send their ex-men taken through the various government-sponsored wringers like Ontario's Family Responsibility Office. Institutions like the FRO are designed for a two-fold purpose. They enslave the woman to the state, make sure she depends on the FRO and the welfare office for all the defence and support we once expected a husband to provide, and to punish, impoverish and disempower men.

And when did such structures start being put into place? About the same time women got the vote and started taking over the driver's seat in politics. Socialism is woman's politics. Indeed, we call it the nanny state because it tends to infantilise entire societies. But really, the new state that the woman's vote has created should more properly be called the Daddy State.

It comes from and is powered by the natural instinct of women to be looked after. Feminism is doubly insidious because it plays on that need and turns it into terror. I know from my own experience that women have been trained to be terrified of men, of wanting a man, of marriage and most especially of motherhood. It is an ideology of fear and hatred that teaches women their lives will never be secure until they give themselves and their children to the state.

Socialism, the Daddy State, comes from feminist panic attacks. Feminism whispers that men leave, they abandon women and their children, so it is best to replace the entire edifice of family life with the state.

The Daddy State was created by the woman's vote.

15 comments:

ELISABETH said...

Amen. The feminists' "empowerment of women" has been the most weakening, demeaning and degrading thing to happen to women -- perhaps ever? Infuriating.

Aaron Traas said...

I've come to the belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote about a year ago. I remember it well -- I was previously on the fence about it, and then I discussed it with my wife. She's a very tradition-minded woman (TLM, veils, stay-at-home mom, etc.). The second I brought this topic up, saying that I was on the fence, she went into insane feminist mode, claiming that I saw her as less then human, and a tirade of egalitarian dreck for an hour. At that moment, I was positive that women shouldn't vote.

Then again, I'm a monarchist -- I don't think I should have the right to vote. But that's another issue.

Rob said...

I agree. And I used to be very pro-feminism.

I remember a few years ago, when I had only recently become the present troglodyte that I am, being at my uncle's house for a party. A lot of his republican friends were discussing something in the living room and my conservative ex-military brother said, "Ah, this is the conservative room."

I listened to their moderniist arguments and thought, "Oh man, I am the only conservative here. Campaign finance laws? Hell, I think the child labor restrictions of a century ago were wrong-headed. And I don't believe in women's rights."

Of course, I stopped thinking in terms of conservative and liberal some time ago. I don't know what I am, or even if I am "classifiable". Maybe I will just stick with "bad Catholic" or "horrible sinner".

Anonymous said...

I am in favor of limiting the franchise by any methods whatsoever. I would be in favor of limiting it to natural redheads, or to people with R's in their names, or to people who are not in any debt, or to people who can juggle.

I don't think the historical case can be made for universal female suffrage being more problematic than universal male suffrage, however, because women's suffrage came at the exact same point the educational systems in both Great Britain and the United States were hijacked by evil plotters who wished to make most people even stupider than they were already. We don't have a situation where a mass of women educated to a high standard were given the vote and then things went pear-shaped; we have a situation where the masses of both sexes were deliberately disconnected from the ways of life that lead to natural common sense and deliberately miseducated in ways that made them impermeable to reason and susceptible to control.

There is a good metaphysical case to be made for the evil of female suffrage, of course, but as the monarchist above points out, it's nearly identical to the case against democracy. - Karen

Rob said...

Karen,

Excellent point. However, I don't have anything against women getting an education. If they qualify and can afford it or work for it, more power to 'em. And I say without shame that I know women who are more intelligent than I (except when it comes to sports statistics)

My problem with women's vote is the same as my problem with child labor laws and a host of other regulations: they divide the family unit into individuals. I think education and opportunity should have been extended to all, but the franchise should have remained limited (possibly not even to include me). I also think that feminism, meant, perhaps, to simply open opportunity to women, ended up causing women to feel like they were failures if they chose to do what I genuinely think comes naturally to most women: have children and care for them. I suspect that many women in our society regret their career choices (hence the great number of women trying to conceive at all costs well into their forties.)

Aaron Traas said...


I am in favor of limiting the franchise by any methods whatsoever. I would be in favor of limiting it to natural redheads, or to people with R's in their names, or to people who are not in any debt, or to people who can juggle.
...
There is a good metaphysical case to be made for the evil of female suffrage, of course, but as the monarchist above points out, it's nearly identical to the case against democracy. - Karen


Agreed -- limiting the voting pool to a small group, even if arbitrarily chosen would get rid of:

1) entitlement that everyone should have a voice and it must be provided for them
2) the illusion that voting actually matters
3) emotional mob mentality of every damn citizen

Democracy is crap, mostly because people are too stupid, selfish, and short-sighted to make good long-term policy decisions. Why are nearly illiterate people voting for the leader of their nation, who will deal with issues that they cannot even begin to grasp? How are they qualified at all to choose him? Is all voting bad? No! I have no problem with the average joe electing the town Sherrif or Mayor. I have no issue with everyone who has a highschool diploma electing the members of the school board. These are issues that the average man can grasp, and at a level of locality where everyone has the opportunity to get to know the candidates.

Aaron Traas said...

My problem with women's vote is the same as my problem with child labor laws and a host of other regulations: they divide the family unit into individuals. I think education and opportunity should have been extended to all, but the franchise should have remained limited (possibly not even to include me).

Agreed -- one of the thought experiments that lead me down to thinking women couldn't vote is thinking about the return of land-owner only voting, as the land-owner has a greater stake in the affairs of his community. If that is the case, and ownership of a household is joint in marriage, did it make sense to have married men and women each vote? Of course not. If one is to vote, who should it be? It should be the head of the household, i.e., the man.

That being said, while I think the average land-owning man in a society like this would vote better than the average woman, I still don't think they'd vote particularly well. Most men today are honorless weaklings, who while they would be less likely to vote with their emotions, they'd have no problem voting their families state handouts.

Aaron Traas said...

I would be in favor of limiting it to natural redheads, or to people with R's in their names, or to people who are not in any debt, or to people who can juggle.

One last comment -- natural redheads and people who aren't in debt are good. Your other examples are poor. For instance, if people had to have an R in their name, parents would just give everyone such a name. If a skill as simple as juggling is required, everyone would be able to juggle. I think Americans are too adicted to debt to ever be free of it en masse.

Better still, land-owners who have no debt! We'd have an aristocracy in no time.

Anonymous said...

Nice thought, though it wouldn't make much of a difference as most modern men are big children.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I've been distracted from this important conversation by my pregnancy and my hair. - Karen

Warren said...

I'll suggest a counter-point.

Imagine we subtract Women from this discussion, and we substitute Christians.

Then, you can have your wish. Just move to any Muslim country you wish to live in, as Dhimmi.

How is that different? Isn't there a fundamental moral issue. Voting is not your right. But your dignity as a human being should have some safeguard. Ideally, in a Catholic world-view, the dignity of the human (female) person should be guaranteed by the public protection of the public and private good of strong marriages, and the ensuing family life.

I agree that Feminism has struck our society to the heart. But it was not the "women get the vote", but the "women get all the rest of a man's more shallow ambitions in exchange for the full expression of their full gives as a person, and a woman".

You could say that before men left the family farm, and we all moved into cities, that the ball truly started rolling down the hill that we find it at the bottom of today.

So how far back do we have to rewind the clock, before we realize that there were no golden ages?

If liberals have a fault that I despise most (and YES they sure do!), it would be their idea that they can create a Utopia on earth, apart from God. If conservatives have a fault that drives me nuts, it's the subconscious urge to rewind to a golden age.

Warren

Anonymous said...

Wait, Warren, are you gay? Because I need someone to do my hair, like now. - Karen

Always On Watch said...

Courtesy notification....I will be citing this post later this week at my blog.

Always On Watch said...

I got the post I mentioned in the above comment up today.

anothertwocents said...

Please marry me!

Steven