The Crazy Cat Lady Stage Of America

From a commenter over at Mangan’s:

Female suffrage has led to a feminizing of Western Civilization. That civilization is now entering its crazy cat lady stage, that most female of destinies. Witness the hoarding of immigrants (rather than animals) that we don’t need, that we can’t properly house or care for, the self delusions, the unstable self-image and sense of self, the recurrent suicidal behavior and self-injuring behavior, the picking at scabs. Government is now the defacto husband. Immigrants the children that were never had.

The crazy cat lady stage of America — yep, that about sums it up. So what follows? Who knows. It’s possible the pendulum will swing back, perhaps violently.

As we here at the Chateau relish provoking reminding the readers, giving women the right to vote has been a disaster for liberty-loving small-government patriots. Do any of the mainstream conservative or libertarian bloggers have anything to say about Lott’s study? Their cowardly silence speaks volumes.

Another Mangan commenter noted:

Agreed with Anonymous – if you look at when women got the right to vote you can see pretty much where the country started it’s liberal slide. Today there is a seventeen percentage point gap between male and female approval of Obama’s policies and if it was just the male vote, McCain would have won in 2008.

For all the principled reasons to grant the franchise to women, there is no doubt that doing so has exacerbated, if not precipitated, the decline and eventual fall of America. Forty million Mexicans don’t help, either.





Comments


  1. Kick ass post! Tis the truth! Post America indeed and then we mourn.

    Like


  2. I love it.

    When men no longer want women, the cats shall inherit the Earth.

    Like


  3. Aw, forchrissakes!

    Like


  4. was desegregation too liberal for you Roissy? maybe blacks shouldnt be allowed to vote either, heck they just vote for affirmative action and welfare anyways, right?

    Like


  5. Cowardly silence? On women’s suffrage? Just to just to give one conservative and one libertarian example, Ann Coulter and I have both been very clear on our opposition to women’s suffrage. I have written on the subject numerous times; here’s one example from 2007:

    “What Ann understands and so many nominal conservatives do not is that women’s suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty or a republic as described in the U.S. Constitution. The two cannot co-exist. One cannot defend freedom on the basis of emotion, as fear always runs to promises of security, however nebulous.”

    Women’s suffrage has been a complete and unmitigated disaster across the West and it is doubtful that any society can survive it for long.

    Like


  6. on October 18, 2010 at 1:06 pm Ascending Alpha

    ROFL! This post made my day.

    Then I realized true it is and how screwed we are as a country.

    Like


  7. on October 18, 2010 at 1:21 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101017/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_integration

    BERLIN – Chancellor Angela Merkel’s declaration that Germany’s attempts to build a multicultural society had “utterly failed” is feeding a growing debate over how to deal with the millions of foreigners who call the country home.

    “This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed,” Merkel said.

    ”””’

    Had to post again.

    Maybe woman are the only ones who will be allowed to say this out loud.

    I would think pretty big step when leader of germany who for years has been beaten down about how bad they are just came out and said multicultural approach “utterly failed”

    I think maybe woman are realizing that them dating and being able to date and marry multiculturally is not going to be one option of theirs but the only option one of these days.

    Like


  8. on October 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm Blessent mon coeur

    VD, he qualified it with “mainstream conservative or libertarian bloggers.” Are you mainstream?

    Like


  9. Why not stop there? Society has been in a decline ever since the Pharaohs allowed depictions of women on the tomb walls. It’s only a matter of time now….

    Like


  10. so it’s “blame it on the bitches” then?

    Gotta hand it to you, the Nazis at least picked an extreme minority to use as a scapegoat. You just picked over half the population. You guys are pretty ballsy.

    Like


  11. My wife understands that women should not vote. She trusts me to vote, and explain to her who to vote for. But as long as she can vote, I might as well steer her to the correct conclusions.

    Like


  12. maybe blacks shouldnt be allowed to vote either, heck they just vote for affirmative action and welfare anyways, right?

    ===
    Blacks have voted since the end of the Civil War. They served in the military and they owned land.

    Like


  13. Good job, AJ, for wildly spinning off the rails. Men are the ones that should be voting, no matter the color. Women should not be able to vote, because they will invariably vote for security at the expense of freedom.

    Ultimately, as Benjamin Franklin observes, they won’t get security either.

    Like


  14. Why not stop there? Society has been in a decline ever since the Pharaohs allowed depictions of women on the tomb walls. It’s only a matter of time now

    Reductio ad absurdum.

    Civilizational success always depended on two things:

    1) A culture that steers carefully between extremes of liberalism (defined broadly) and discipline (defined broadly)

    2) Maintaining a population stock that makes No.1 above possible

    Like


  15. Oh my gosh, thank you! As a very well educated and well read woman, I was taught via traditional Catholic sources and educators to think … objectively; to step back from emotion – a perfectly healthy and natural tendency of my sex – and evaluate all things in a dispassionate light. I bless that self discipline – it has served me well in mind, body and soul.
    To that end, I came to the conclusion approximately 10 years ago that the 19th amendment is contrary to the natural order – a tree is known by it’s fruit, and the fruit is rotten. The strategy at the time now seems obvious, that it was another important underpinning of the Progressive movement, and perhaps the most successful. (hey, Woodrow Wilson, the mother of all evil US Presidents, was a big fan and proponent).

    Like


  16. on October 18, 2010 at 2:26 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    Stupid cunts brought Prohibition along with them too.

    If Carrie Nation came into _my_ bar with a hatchet, I’d have shot that wrinkly twat with both barrels.

    Like


  17. Blessent mon coeur:

    “VD, he qualified it with “mainstream conservative or libertarian bloggers.” Are you mainstream?”

    Ann Coulter certainly is a mainstream conservative, and Vox is a mainstream libertarian, or would be if there was such a thing.

    Like


  18. That PDF file is pretty large. Anyone got cliff notes?

    Like


  19. Conservatives and libertarians won’t say stuff like this because they’ll get mau-maued and marginalized. Check out the reaction to this relatively harmless statement-in-passing from Peter Thiel:

    http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote

    Thiel’s already rich and lives in California as a private investor, so his politics won’t affect his career and life. Do you think a pundit in Washington could take the same risk?

    Like


  20. Encouraging of mass immigration is the most stupid self-destructive thing ever

    “You are all welcome as long as you adopt our culture and language!” Yeah it’s going to happen for sure

    Like


  21. AJ says, “was desegregation too liberal for you Roissy? maybe blacks shouldnt be allowed to vote either, heck they just vote for affirmative action and welfare anyways, right?”

    Black men got the vote before women did.

    Like


  22. Wake up white man… you are dying.

    Look around you, is this what you want for your children and your children’s children?

    Like


  23. Wake up white man… you are dying.

    Look around you, is this what you want for your children and your children’s children?

    ===
    Children? Haha, right, not in a million years.

    Like


  24. Women vote for the taller guy

    Like


  25. on October 18, 2010 at 3:58 pm Professor Woland

    On funny note, most Western European contries have some sort of proportional representation. This gives women voters a much more direct lever on the nation’s finances. One reason libertarianism (tea parties) scares the shit out of minorities and women is that they are the ones that will ultimately be de-funded. It could end up where this country is so broke that we can no longer afford our surplus mouths.

    Like


  26. I don’t get Roissy’s love of conservatives. True, I dislike politically correct liberals a lot but right wingers are worse.
    They are usually the ones who are always gung-ho for conflict and and the liberals sometimes may follow them but often don’t.

    I believe in personal responsibility, hard work, and low taxes. However I don’t agree with the right wingers general attitude of “Them vs. Us” which ignores historical context(I’m referring to the problems in the middle east). Bear in mind most democrats actually supported the war till public opinion changed. At least republicans have a backbone, while democrats switch positions based on whims.

    Like


  27. “was desegregation too liberal for you Roissy? maybe blacks shouldnt be allowed to vote either, heck they just vote for affirmative action and welfare anyways, right?”

    Segregation was a state-enforced evil. Jim Crow laws were exactly that….laws by government…the exact opposite of libertarianism. Liberty and capitalism work against segregation and bring people together. Liberal government intervention into spheres of our life government should not touch is why we had separate water fountains and white-only schools.

    Like


  28. The crazy cat lady stage of America — yep, that about sums it up. So what follows?

    The SAME thing that follows in a cathouse: piss n’ shit buckled once-gleaming mahogany floor boards – and total decay until

    THE WHOLE SHITHOUSE
    gets torn
    down

    Like


  29. So if no woman should not have a vote then the obvious following question is should all men have a vote?

    Further following questions should be equally obvious.

    Like


  30. on October 18, 2010 at 4:26 pm The Quest For 50

    I think it’s short-sighted to say that all liberalism has been destructive to the country, and to blame women (there are plenty of conservative women). Yes, some of our divorce laws and rape laws and domestic violence laws have become heavily favored toward women, but that is just as much the fault of white-knighting men in power who have allowed it and still allow it to happen, with some antiquated idea of chivalry in their heads.

    Like


  31. “should have”.

    Like


  32. I am a tenure-track (but as yet untenured) college professor at a smaller, i.e. non-flagship state school. Last year in class I suggested that the women’s suffrage movement, while defensible on grounds of equal political rights, had mostly had liberty-reducing consequences: prohibition, the drug war, political correctness, etc. I challenged the students to come up with counter-examples.

    For a few weeks there I really feared for my job.

    Like


  33. for a moment, forget about whether women should or should not have the vote. instead, ask ‘how could you reaslistically have a contemporary society in which women are not allowed to vote?’ how do you have a democracy, ostensibly grounded in the idea that individuals are fully-formed moral beings perfecty capable of self-government, that denies suffrage to half of the adult population? some women might accept that, but the overwhelming majority won’t consent to being treated like children. how do you convince millions of human beings that they should just shut up and look pretty?

    it seems untenable in the long run.

    Like


  34. The Quest For 50, feminism and liberalism (cloaked leftism) are two sides of the same coin. It is a known fact that women tend to favor leftist ideas, a majority of them. Look how they vote in elections.

    I’ll spell it out for you: Liberals are enablers of women’s privileges. Thus, they are enemies of men. If you vote liberals, you are enemy of men as well. It is that simple.

    Like


  35. I don’t think its suffrage. Women have always been both a good and bad influence. Mary Wollstonecroft (Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley’s mother) was an early feminist, espousing most of the stuff Friedan later recycled. But on the other hand, Western Women have always had more freedom, and critically were far more productive than non-Western women.

    The difference in early Medieval Europe (the water-wheel revolution), Renaissance Europe, Early Modern Europe, and Industrial Europe was *ALWAYS* women. I.E. other, non-Western (mostly Asian and Muslim societies) groups had much greater numbers but lower production capacity, because women were in segregation, unable to act as small craftsman supporters, and men were not deeply invested via the nuclear family, which depends on women being productive.

    I would argue, the critical phase of the West’s decline came about when women were largely separated from Beta Male providers. Via technology: contraception, anonymous urban living, lack of older women/prettier women “slut shaming” and incomes rising equal/above most analogous men.

    Like


  36. Expecting women not to vote for Big Daddy policies is absurd. Women are proud of this – it points out how much more caring and redistributive they are than men.

    Allowing them to vote is one thing.

    But think about it:

    Lots of men vote for these policies, too. And lots of women vote for the opposite.

    So, really, before you start leveling the finger at the women, start taking a good hard long look at the men.

    What went around came around and bit us.

    Like


  37. j r, what is the alternative? The society will run into the ground due to socialism that women are instumental in voting in, when later the state will run out of other people’s money and then it will be taken over by elements that would not only deny vote to women, but also to men.

    You know that in the Eastern Bloc (commie era), the elections were a pure scam with one candidate on a ballot, right? Effectively, your right to vote was turned into a joke.

    Like


  38. on October 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm Blessent mon coeur

    Giraffe,

    “Ann Coulter certainly is a mainstream conservative, and Vox is a mainstream libertarian, or would be if there was such a thing.”

    Good points.

    Like


  39. on October 18, 2010 at 4:59 pm The Quest For 50

    Whiskey just hit it on the head. It’s a confluence of technology, culture, and government that has returned us to caveman sexual selection and behavior.

    Like


  40. how do you have a democracy, ostensibly grounded in the idea that individuals are fully-formed moral beings perfecty capable of self-government, that denies suffrage to half of the adult population?

    We are effectively saying that lots of voters are not “moral beings capable of self government”.

    Like


  41. gig & morsallaux:

    We are effectively saying that lots of voters are not “moral beings capable of self government”.

    i get the argument, but that’s not my question. my question is: how do convince a significant portion of the adult population that they are not capable of self-government? what do you do when they refuse to cooperate? what do you do when they march in the streets demanding the vote or strike or pay taxes?

    how do you make that system work?

    Like


  42. The Quest For 50, your hamster wheel is oiled well.

    Like


  43. “We are effectively saying that lots of voters are not ‘moral beings capable of self government'”.

    So who is? And whoever they are presumably this includes yourself?

    Like


  44. on October 18, 2010 at 5:12 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””but the overwhelming majority won’t consent to being treated like children. ”””’

    lol right.

    Isn’t that how men are treated now?

    Voting or not is how you are treated like a child?

    How bout just being treated like a child.

    How being treated worse than a child.

    Like


  45. j r, raise the voting age to 35. Many men and substantial segment of women are mature enough at that age. It is not ideal solution, but the results would be probably strongly tilted away from leftist ideology.

    Like


  46. on October 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    So if no woman should not have a vote then the obvious following question is should all men have a vote?

    Anyone who pays more in taxes than they receive in direct benefits should have the vote, or people who served in the military. The rest should be considered, Heinlein-style, ‘civilians’ instead of ‘citizens’.

    To quote the Roman senate, “FUCK THE POOR!”

    Like


  47. With exception of civil servants, that is. No voting right for them. Conflict of interest.

    Like


  48. @ j r

    You can´t convince them. Only some political rupture could force a significant portion of the adult population to lose their political rights.

    That´s the dangerous part, because most – paleo – conservatives tend to be enthralled by this millenarian belief in The Rupture.

    Like


  49. j r, raise the voting age to 35.

    again, how do you do it? you think everyone between the ages of 18 and 35 are suddenly going to consent to that? what about people in the armed forces, cops, fireman, paramedics? how do you convince people that it’s in their best interest to not have a voice in the public debate?

    personally, i think it would be great if congress were only allowed to pass laws on things they are constitutionally mandated to pass laws on. unfortunately, that ship has sailed. there’s no way you can get people to agree to give back powers, privileges, or entitlements once they have them.

    Like


  50. So who is?

    uuumm, net taxpayers?

    And whoever they are presumably this includes yourself?

    Nope, I am above that. No bourgeois voting rights, even if highly restricted, for me. I would straight into the Nobility and that would make “His Highness, Duke of Gig”.

    Like


  51. gig, “rupture” is about right. I think you meant “rapture”. But that is a religious stuff and what that means is debatable. But the “rupture”, it’sa coming. The national debt figures spell it clearly, no matter how deep you try to bury your head in the sand.

    Like


  52. @ morsellaux

    Nope, I meant The Rupture. The Rapture is for the “Ein State, Ein People, Ein Israel” crowd.

    Also, the debt dynamics in the US are far from disastrous. The US heads for default late into the 2020s…

    Like


  53. j r, very well, then. Shit will happen. Then no one will have any voting right (in a meaningful sense) at all.

    Like


  54. gig, within a year.

    Like


  55. I’m as conservative as anyone in my worldview, but I’ve come to realize that a certain amount of socialism is indeed optimal for a society, and that level is somewhat high. A few important things happen when you have transfer payments to the poor– one, it satisfies and sedates them enough so they don’t form a mob and march over to the rich side of town with molotov cocktails. Civil unrest and revolutions have been the norm in historical society, not the exception. Nothing upsets an economy like riots and murders. High taxes is the price the haves pay to have a peaceful society in which they can freely run their businesses and live in mansions.

    Secondly, social goodwill is a public good that arises from these transfer payments to the poor. One can go through almost any western country and feel safe pretty much everywhere because of this effect. The main exception is actually the USA. Compare the social democracies of Europe and Canada with, say, Brazil. Your two choices there are to be poor and live in a filth-ridden ghetto, or be successful and literally fear for your life when you step outside of your gated compound or bulletproof vehicle. I’m not an elitist by any means, but I am actually disgusted when I interact with the trashiest members of the American underclass by how ignorant and mindless they are. I have never had that experience in Canada or Europe.

    Like


  56. *Should have said, many parts of Brazil.

    Like


  57. A strange arguement which is as lost as any sociology textbook. Before the Mexicans, it was the Jews from Europe. Before that, it was the wild Irish. It goes on. US was “kind of sort of” built off immigrants. In fact, first and second born immigrants are over-represented in the millionaire category. Without immigrants, the US would be filled native Indians. I’m sure you’d be botching about that also. Count your blessing. At least, Latino women tend to be thin.

    Like


  58. Ya, Mukluk, like Greece. Their socialism finally hit the wall and the entitled people, no longer placated, resort to molotov cocktail. Peachy.

    Like


  59. “Anyone who pays more in taxes than they receive in direct benefits should have the vote”

    I presume you mean income taxes. If the income tax is replaced with a straight sales tax (as some advocate) then how would you calculate an individual’s taxes? Would it be total tax? Tax at point of sale? If someone pays no taxes and receives no benefits can they purchase a right to vote for one dollar?

    “To quote the Roman senate, “’FUCK THE POOR!’”

    You would need to institute gun control to make that one stick nowadays.

    “With exception of civil servants, that is. No voting right for them.”

    Ouch.

    No soldier can vote? No county paramedic can vote? No fireman can vote? No police officer can vote? No prison guard can vote?

    “We are effectively saying that lots of voters are not ‘moral beings capable of self government’.”

    “So who is?”

    “uuumm, net taxpayers?”

    Net taxpayers are moral beings capable of self-government … and government of others?

    Like


  60. Cliff notes version, direct quote:

    “Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws.”

    Like


  61. Uno, legal immigrants, in quotas that are reasonable to facilitate assimilation is fine. Illegal invasion that changes the demographics not just marginally within one generation is not that fine. In fact, it is outright suicidal.

    Like


  62. Soldiers, firemen, law enforcement and paramedics, all good. With exception of soldiers, they are a local government employees. Federal bureaucrats, not good. Conflict of interest.

    Like


  63. The Greece case doesn’t contradict my point. There is an optimal level of redistribution, and many countries have been in jeopardy of well exceeding that level and bankrupting the entire society. Greece was one of them.

    Furthermore, the redistribution process can vary greatly in its level of efficiency and effectiveness, based on what programs are enacted. Obviously when money gets pissed away carelessly with little commensurate social benefit, nobody wins. See: 5-6 weeks of paid vacation and full retirement benefits at 60, as has been the case in multiple European countries. Just not necessary.

    Like


  64. “Soldiers, firemen, law enforcement and paramedics, all good. With exception of soldiers, they are a local government employees. Federal bureaucrats, not good. Conflict of interest.”

    Oh. So we are talking about federal level only.

    Should women retain the right to vote at the state level? City? County? School board?

    What is a “Federal bureaucrat”? The mailman? Air traffic controllers? FBI?

    Like


  65. Crazy. Totally nuts. And deep, deep, deep in denial.

    Yes, civilServant, a straight consumption tax like the FairTax would shift the incentives of the leeches enough to make them worthy of voting.

    Like


  66. “Crazy. Totally nuts. And deep, deep, deep in denial.”

    Just asking questions. Denial is a common human trait found everywhere.

    “Yes, civilServant, a straight consumption tax like the FairTax would shift the incentives of the leeches enough to make them worthy of voting.”

    The people who have the money and therefore the vote are going to impose upon themselves a consumption tax?

    Like


  67. “Secondly, social goodwill is a public good that arises from these transfer payments to the poor. One can go through almost any western country and feel safe pretty much everywhere because of this effect. The main exception is actually the USA. Compare the social democracies of Europe and Canada with, say, Brazil.”

    This is because the US and Brazil are more “diverse” than Europe, at least for a while longer. Transfer payments are largely irrelevant. (Note: The US spends huge amounts on transfer payments)

    The areas of Europe that have become “diverse” are also no-go areas for people of a pale persuation. The exact danger level is determined by the origins according the the usual scale:

    – African origin: Dangerous, high levels of dysfunction.
    – Middle-eastern origins: Somewhat dangerous, moderate dysfunction, some organized subversive activity.
    – East asian origins: Highly functional, not dangerous.

    Like


  68. Many irrational and damaging policies result directly from the influence of female voters and their elevation of emotional content over cost benefit analysis and long range planning (the underlining idea of the female-driven democrat party seems to be avoiding pain right now). Women also have a pervasive influence on the media as a targeted, consuming demographic and are probably largely to blame for the traction and impact of lies and propaganda (being relatively weak in worldly insight into motives and higher reasoning skills). By producer/publisher design, soft-centered male writers, journalists, and news anchors dress feminine perspectives in wolf’s clothing, leaving an intuitive impression of male agreement.

    Like


  69. “A strange arguement which is as lost as any sociology textbook.”

    First thing we do come the revolution: Kill all the sociologists.

    “Before the Mexicans, it was the Jews from Europe. Before that, it was the wild Irish.”

    There have been Mexicans in the us for a long time – you don´t have to use jews as proxies in order to determine their future social performance. (Hint: Things aren´t looking very rosy – especially as current immigrants are more amerindian than previous waves).

    “It goes on. US was “kind of sort of” built off immigrants.”

    No, it was built by colonists who settled in America.

    “In fact, first and second born immigrants are over-represented in the millionaire category.”

    Immigrant status is irrelevant to social performance. Race and ethnicity is highly relevant to social performance.

    “Without immigrants, the US would be filled native Indians. ”

    No, it would be filled with British colonists. Colonization != Immigration.

    Like


  70. Tom Leykis is the man!!!

    Check him out at Youtube under channel LVJ112.

    Like


  71. I don’t know how to quote. Anyway, I think racial compatibility and cultural compatibility also lead to social goodwill. Economic equality is just as important, though. The French Revolution wasn’t caused by racial diversity. America would be incredibly less safe if there was a lot less welfare. Unfortunately, the form of the government expenditures is often wasteful, ineffective or corrupt.

    Like


  72. Many irrational and damaging policies result directly from the influence of female voters and their elevation of emotional content over cost benefit analysis and long range planning (the underlining idea of the female-driven democrat party seems to be avoiding pain right now). Women also have a pervasive influence on the media as a targeted, consuming demographic and are probably largely to blame for the traction and impact of lies and propaganda (being relatively weak in worldly insight into motives and higher reasoning skills). By producer/publisher design, soft-centered male writers, journalists, and news anchors dress feminine perspectives in wolf’s clothing, leaving an intuitive impression of male agreement.

    This is bang on (props to PA as well), and in addition to this I have my slightly shorter than usual two cents as I’m tired from a day’s manly warehouse work.

    The male/female social dynamic (as explored by Chateau and its core readership) is rather analogous to politics. I remember a comment in an older entry that said something like “men use the argument to win the crowd; women use the crowd to win the argument”. It was mentioned in the context of the idea that women are pretty much impervious to reason (“facts and figures are like holy water to the emotionally vampiric female soul” – Roissy 2010) so refutative screeds are pretty beta/un-game when engaged in an argument with a high self-SMV girl. Women, being the more emotional creatures they are, find social ostracism an easier weapon to wield than reason. You can see how Left-Liberalism and its discourse seems almost constructed around that psyche.

    There’s a lesson to be learned in both game and politics. Men need to know how to wield social ostracism (or other oneupmanship) with women – beat them at their own game (negging, flipping the script, etc). As for politics, fallaciousness is an evil but appeals to emotion are the only thing that works. Look how better the post-modernist deconstructivist Left has been at employing humour. The SWPL website may be the product of a self-confessed SWPL but the coining of such a term to me is a sign that the fightback on our side has begun.

    [/convoluted musings]

    Like


  73. Voting =! Freedom

    The evidence (a government that almost never gets any smaller) clearly shows that universal suffrage is mostly about choosing the form of the destructor.

    I vote Stay Puft.

    Like


  74. The French Revolution was caused by French people.

    England and former British colonies are all remarkably stable and relative free over the past 300+ years. Today’s most free states are former British colonies and former British colonies or American protectorates are among the best performing former colonies. Throwing in some token diversity may be good, but watering down liberty loving people does not need to more liberty, it leads to tyranny.

    Like


  75. Wow, 2 misreadings in 1 post! No, cS, the nutsy ones are the American public (among others) – and the denial is there in the link in the sentence.

    And yeah, the only thing preventing a shift in tax to consumption instead of income is the massed vote of gimme-more sheep. Have a look at the FairTax for reference and see who *doesn’t* want it to happen.

    Like


  76. on October 18, 2010 at 7:01 pm David Rockefeller

    But for the last 100 years, countries that are best for women have enjoyed not just civil rights but also the world’s highest standards of living, including an ever increasing growth of economic productivity. Which is really all that matters economically speaking.

    Who wants to live in some third world s-hole where half the population is illiterate, where the economy is stagnant, where they haven’t figured out hot running water?

    I’ve been in those countries. You’ll need a week or so before you realize that if they’re willing to kill any improperly dressed woman, they’re not too squeamish about who else they’re willing to abuse.

    Sorry, but I like living in a post-enlightenment country.

    Like


  77. Good point about prohibition. Women voters also brought in most of the anti-gun and prostitution laws.

    The whole idea is to remove any element of fun from their menfolks’ lives.

    Like


  78. David Rockefeller.

    You’re making a false dichotomy there.

    It’s not a case of choosing between the current state of affairs and Afghanistan. Women’s suffrage didn’t come into most places till well after 1900. Long after “the Enlightenment”

    Europe and the US were pretty civilised places back then too.

    Like


  79. But for the last 100 years, countries that are best for women have enjoyed not just civil rights but also the world’s highest standards of living

    Now learn to live without all that economic growth stuff

    Like


  80. “And yeah, the only thing preventing a shift in tax to consumption instead of income is the massed vote of gimme-more sheep. Have a look at the FairTax for reference and see who *doesn’t* want it to happen.”

    But we are talking here about a proffered situation where only people who pay taxes have any vote. They will vote to impose a tax upon their own consumption?

    Like


  81. on October 18, 2010 at 7:28 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””Morsellaux
    gig, within a year.
    ”””’

    Explain how a person can buy a house on 30 year mortgage and pay it off at what three times their gdp or wage per year but a government that is in debt only for a year of gdp is in such bad shape?

    Like


  82. Using how a group of people has tended to vote as justification to deny members of that group their rights strikes me as a terrible and deeply immoral policy.

    Why do you hate freedom?

    Like


  83. @ ultranaut

    I feel that I am taxed too much. So I want to take away the political rights of those who vote for taxes on me. Which basically implies overturning everything since the French Revolution

    Those damn French didn’t knwo that Versailles was much cheaper than the Welfare State

    Like


  84. > Do any of the mainstream conservative or libertarian bloggers have anything to say about Lott’s study? Their cowardly silence speaks volumes.

    He’s not a blogger, but Peter Thiel has come out with that kind of thinking, and he didn’t pull his punches either. He’s a billionaire, so it’s not quite as risky for him to pop up like that.

    Anyway, I’ll be surprised if there’s more than one other prominent libertarian out there saying this. For the sake of how many Righteous ‘Tarians (a piece of lingo in the spirit of ‘tard’) would you spare the ‘Tarian City, were you the Lord?

    Like


  85. The sixty-four thousand dollar question we in the West have been gambling our civilization on since we gave women the right to vote is this:

    Is it possible to grant most of your citizenry freedom to be short-sighted and irresponsible AND simultaneously sustain a productive, prosperous, dynamic, growing culture that survivies in the long term? In other words, when given the choice, will most people choose to be responsible anyway?

    Thus far, things aren’t looking too good.

    In virtually every Western country that has granted women the right to vote and the right to reproductive choice, the fertility rate has dropped below replacement level. The ideal solution would be for the majority of people, men and women, to maintain their relative freedom while accepting the burden of duties associated with child-rearing and planning for the future. (In America the time when this was most true was the 1950s to the mid 1960s, before things started to fall apart.) But in the end, demographics are destiny. If the choice is between “sailing off into that gentle night” or forcibly trying to bring this culture back to a more reasonable level of long-term thinking, I’m definitely for the latter choice. And if that means putting the ladies in their places again, I’m for that too.

    Like


  86. “Using how a group of people has tended to vote as justification to deny members of that group their rights strikes me as a terrible and deeply immoral policy.”

    When a group of people tends to vote themselves other people’s money, is that a terrible and deeply immoral policy too?

    “Why do you hate freedom?”

    Freedom to steal?

    They don’t hate freedom any more than anyone else. They’re just trying to defend themselves.

    Like


  87. You all keyboard as if that alone can “save” a country.

    If our vicious host believes as do I of a “decline and eventual fall of America”

    Then that fall is likely to happen, and all the fancy college rhetoric is worth squat.

    Even here, amongst the educated, the tendency for mankind to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is glaringly apparent.

    You can not buy into the prediction that America truly falls under a crushing burden of societal filth…then cavalierly discuss academic fancies like Rooseveltian 1903 attitudes on Suffrage and immigration.

    That is discussing the dynamics of maritime steam engines while those icy waters sweep away your pretty arrangements of deck chairs.

    And that’s plain stupid.

    Like


  88. When men no longer want women, the cats shall inherit the Earth. “Truth about Women”

    This would more accurately read…”When women no longer want men, the cats shall inherit the Earth.”

    Like


  89. ”””””’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101017/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_integration

    BERLIN – Chancellor Angela Merkel’s declaration that Germany’s attempts to build a multicultural society had “utterly failed” is feeding a growing debate over how to deal with the millions of foreigners who call the country home.

    “This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed,” Merkel said.

    ”””’

    Had to post again.

    Maybe woman are the only ones who will be allowed to say this out loud.

    ————–

    Too bad Merkel the Jerk-el, the East German ‘former’ Communist – and likely Stasi spy, is basically talking out of both sides of her ample ass – just saying what the electorate ‘wants to hear’, especially since the release of former German Finance Minister Thilo Sarrazin’s book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Does Away With Itself).

    “Reports of its demise (MultiKulti) are greatly exaggerated”

    http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/reports-of-its-demise-are-greatly.html

    Like


  90. Explain how a person can buy a house on 30 year mortgage and pay it off at what three times their gdp or wage per year but a government that is in debt only for a year of gdp is in such bad shape?

    Excellent point, Gregi.

    Like


  91. When the bank issues mortgages it does so with the understanding that say 5% are going to default. When it comes to the country, higher than a 1% risk of default is completely unacceptable. Or rather, it should be unacceptable to those who want to see the country continue existing.

    Like


  92. Roissy nailed today’s society with the crazy cat lady comparison…that comparison could have gone on for several more pages and touched on much more of the ways.

    I see in the first comments there is wailing about women’s suffrage, black suffrage, etc. Why don’t we think about all this democratic suffrage stuff in the modern context ( TV age-to-today) and see who should be voting or not?

    Honestly, what today most influences almost all modern voters regarding “legitimate” choices, “important” issues/debates, and “respectable” candidate options? We all know that the answer is BIG mass media. Some may say that the internet alternative media now has began to have some influence…but that is only for a small segment of the population, and even most of them stay attached to the buttocks of the BIG mass media outlet’s news programming websites and “respectable” PC bloggers. Most people are effeminized lemming conformists and they seek out the sources that they believe will give them the most accurate perception of what OTHER PEOPLE believe is the popular “fashionable” “enlightened” “mainstream” way of looking at things. Most women tend to operate this way, but so do the brassless legions of lemming men. They are the “mainstream” base, and the great majority of those allowed to vote. The Big mass media is singing the song that these lemmings like to dance to, and directing them along for their more thought-out exploitative purposes (the prevailing top elites aren’t lemmings themselves and don’t actually believe their own Peter Piper shit).

    So you have a few who form and spread mass thought/opinion/sentiments/identity, and a huge mainstream base of lemmings who follow them based upon the perception that Big media outlets are the authoritative perveyors of “fashion” and “reason” and even “right and wrong”. Welcome to democracy.

    Many people look at this in a one-sided way.
    They think the problem is just the Big media & Co.
    OR they think the problem is OTHER PEOPLE.
    The problem is all of the above—anyone who benefits in anyway from the current System, perceives it to be preferable to any and all other Systems, and seeks to defend and extend the reach of the current System. Bamn…that is the vast majority of the people living in this country. They love the thing that is killing them—they ARE links and cogs in the System that is killing them. When Big media lies, many of these people know somewhat, but they are fine with it so long as they are still “okay” themselves. For instance, how many of the TV-watching, radio-listening, newspaper-reading lemming public could tell you precisely and honestly why there have been two wars engaged in by the US in the Middle East for almost a decade now? THEY went along with it and continue to do so, but can’t really say why. I could ask the same thing about the decades-long multicult experiment… getting only silly self-serving excuses, feigned moral outrage, or *crickets* in response.
    Just like the story of the emperor’s new clothes!

    Like


  93. on October 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm Abelard Lindsey

    “Do any of the ….. libertarian bloggers have anything to say about Lott’s study?”

    Peter Thiel blogged about the effect of female suffrage and the growth of government about a year ago on Cato Unbound.

    Does that count?

    [Editor: Yes. I stand semi-corrected. Vox Day has also been writing about it. But I was thinking of mainstream outlets like NR or Cheap Chalupa Outlet aka marginal revolution.]

    Like


  94. Voting.

    LMAO! Like that ever meant anything. Insert a Mencken quote here.

    America.

    LMAO! Like the government ever gave a shit about anyone. This country was built for money, not nationalism, sorry. Everyone is a pawn, get over it.

    Women’s “suffrage”.

    LMAO! Ahahahahaaaa! Or better yet, lzozlzlzloozlzllzll!!

    In the end people, only the strong survive. Do what you can do. If it’s meant for you to go down, go down fighting. And yeah, this shit that I’m saying is basic, but so what?

    Like


  95. “It’s possible the pendulum will swing back, perhaps violently.”

    No it is not possible for the pendulum to swing back.

    Among most of human’s close relatives, males do not support or raise offspring. Single motherhood is the norm. This works badly for humans, because childhood is longer and children more dependent in humans.

    The male contribution to child raising is dependent on a patriarchal social order, where patriarchs enforce female chastity and allot daughters to dutiful, martial, disciplined, and productive males – and run the wild boys out of the village. When patriarchy fails, fatherhood fails soon afterward. Game wins, nice guys finish last. The society ceases to reproduce, culturally, physically, and economically – and eventually disappears.

    Patriarchal societies arise from patriarchal societies, and from conquest – an invading army massacres the males, enslaves the women, and settles down to farm the newly conquered land. Patriarchal societies just do not arise spontaneously.

    Like


  96. Cats don’t want to inherit the earth, who would make cat food? Still perhaps all of this is a sinister feline plot … or perhaps not.

    Like


  97. Bogus post…

    The banks control society anyways…you get whatever president the banks want you have…

    The banks want the immigrants…you get the immigrants…

    Where is greatbooksformen when you need him…

    I got new for ya folks….

    The banks own Sarah Palin and John McCain TOO!!

    Like


  98. James A. Donald is correct on the issue of patriarchy.

    Mukluk — Would you characterize the Banlieus of France as peaceful? Or sustainable (transfer payment from older, productive Frenchmen to aggressive, conquest minded Muslims?) How about Britain (same) or the Netherlands (same) or Belgium (same) or Denmark (same) or Norway (same) or Italy (same) or Sweden (same)? In all cases, violent, aggressive young Muslim men commit crimes (principally rape of native European women) at extremely high but un-reported (for the most part) rates. Reporting being an actual crime in many PC/Multi-culti countries.

    Outside of Blacks and Hispanics, America is quite peaceful, more so than Europe, in fact.

    Like


  99. In all cases, violent, aggressive young Muslim men commit crimes (principally rape of native European women) at extremely high but un-reported (for the most part) rates. Reporting being an actual crime in many PC/Multi-culti countries..

    If it’s unreported, how could you possibly know that? And this spurious notion that the government punishes women for reporting that they’ve been raped by minority men of color was a popular complaint when the US authorities finally stopped dragging their feet and cracked down on lynching. That’s some nice discursive company, wouldn’t you say?

    @ TG

    Overstated, but basically right on. It’s impossible to run, or at least effectively campaign, as a presidential candidate without substantial contributions and support from the major financial institutions. The banks wanted Obama; they got him. The urge to blame his election on women either comes from ignorance or misogyny — in this case, probably both. And I have no idea why anyone would be tempted to think that McCain’s election would have been better for the country. He was hardly coherent during the run-up to the election — would you really want someone so scattered and dumb running the country right now, with a reckless buffoon like Palin waiting in the wings? You should be grateful you got steady Eddie Obama to begin gently pushing the sputtering plane back on course, rather than crashing it directly into the fucking mountains.

    Like


  100. It’s true that the powerhouse economy of the U.S. over the last 30 years has benefited significantly from entry of women into the professional workforce, applying mostly unremarkable, above-average intelligence by the millions to private sector problem solving. Bring-home-the-bacon feminism and marginal income tax rate reductions in the 80s kind of came together to put above-average IQ women in the workforce, creating the norm of the two income household. This had a positive effect on efficiency increases as a lot of value is contributed by people with 115 IQs making reasonable judgments about pedestrian issues. There is nothing worse than falling short a few of these thinking water-carriers when running a business and nothing more refreshing than gaining a few you didn’t realize you needed. Obviously, female output/income increases the size of the market, the capital base, the speed of movement down the learning curve, R&D spending, and basically everything (also contributing to a culture of work). While this is wonderful, it is still the case that the large majority of women will flounder in executive positions requiring high levels of strategic thinking and worldly savvy. It may not be possible to have a society which acknowledges female contributions but denies them the vote. But we can ridicule their poor thinking as it influences policy and highlight the pervasive influence of female sensibilities on the public debate. This seems to be a developing trend in the non-PC conservative blog world.

    Like


  101. Is it just me or does it seem like a major stretch to say feminism alone has caused the decline of America as we know it? WAY too many factors in there. Politics is grounded in opinion and the cherry-picking of statistics. Stick to real science please Roissy!

    Like


  102. on October 19, 2010 at 1:19 am Computer Scientist

    “So if no woman should not have a vote then the obvious following question is should all men have a vote?

    Further following questions should be equally obvious.”

    Women are too emotional.

    Men aren’t intelligent enough and too emotional to vote.

    If we build a computer to rule, I’m pretty sure you idiots would be pissed.

    Everyone here talks about PC europe going bankrupt and women getting too much power.

    There’s a country who’s not going bankrupt, doesn’t let women vote and is about to quickly overcome the US as the best in just about everything.

    CHINA.

    I don’t here anyone here wanting communism so I’m of the opinion you fags just hate liiiibruls and anything that ain’t ‘merica (Yee haw and praise jesus).

    When China decides to rape america because they own the economy are you going to complain about liberal China?

    Give up already.

    The US can’t compete in the world market with mega corporations running the country. It can’t compete with millions of it’s citizens in prison. It can’t compete if it spends 40% of it’s cash on war. China seems to be doing everything we aren’t and wiping the floor with our ass. They have more men and less women though.

    In liberal EU you can choose your women, in China you better keep what you find otherwise you WILL die single and lonely.

    Like


  103. Whiskey– As I said above, racial and cultural compatibility are just as important determinants of civic harmony as a reasonable level of economic parity. I never meant to suggest that the latter was the most important factor. Many such differences can never be overcome, and having previously lived in France for a few months I agree with you wholeheartedly about the tragedy of that country’s islamification.

    Like


  104. on October 19, 2010 at 2:34 am David Collard

    Women’s suffrage here in Australia doesn’t seem to have done much damage. I think the main problem America faces with women voting is that one of the parties has decided to pander very hard to women and this has pitted men against women in a nasty zero-sum game.

    Australian men and women still seem to work together as a team. Feminists do exist but they don’t get the traction. Our new female Prime Minister only just squeaked in, may not last long, and has been making socially conservative gestures of appeasement. She is not in a strong position to do much feminist pandering.

    Like


  105. @ ekok

    “Immigrant status is irrelevant to social performance. Race and ethnicity is highly relevant to social performance.”

    Nope. Read “Next Millionaire”. First and second-generation Immigrants are the most ambitious and most likely self-made millionaires.

    [Editor: Selection bias. Immigrant race matters. Have you seen the stats for latin-american immigrants? They are actually going backwards after four generations in the US.]

    Like every flourishing western democracies, The USA imports their talent.

    [A complete and utter bullshit lie.]

    Did you really think it was a coincidence that your wealthy reside in the New Yorks and Californias? Hardly non-cosmopolitan. It’s a global phenomenon. Japan is only exception. Successful global economies compete to win the international talent. If I were to list the US business which would not exist without immigrants, your jaws would drop. It’s no coincidence that Silicon Valley had a 40% east-Asian born population during the 90s tech boom. The problem with the USA is your method of intergrating recent immigrants (~ forcing immediate assimilation) clouds your ability
    to see this.

    America’s history is an immigrant one.

    [Another complete and utter bullshit lie. America is a country *with* immigrants, not a country *of* immigrants.]

    The very few

    [Yet another lie.]

    British folk that lived in the USA ran to Canada, during the American Revolution. America and British culture mix about as well as ketchup and tuna. Not happening. America was very distinctly made up of lower-class Europeans and the poor Irish – immigrants!

    [And still more lies. You’re banned for being a lying pice of shit.]

    Like


  106. @ ekok

    Your analogies comparing Brazil and the USA against Europe are selective. Very safe Canadian cities such as Toronto and Montreal have similarly “diverse” populations to the USA, without that the ridiculous violence and ghettoization…. (actually, Toronto is much more diverse. Canada does not determine racial classification the same way as the USA).
    And just in case their might be any confusion, African-Americans in the USA are not diverse. They are distinctly American. They are about as culturally diverse as an American Southerner. (In fact, after I lived in the USA for 10 years, I found the distinction between African-Americans and White Southerners difficult).

    I need to re-work your analogy to be a little more honest…

    – African-American origin: Dangerous to
    the male white American population. Dysfuctinal (~ can not be controlled. Our women tend to like these animals for some reason. They could be more alpha?). Potential to
    undermine our authority like the Russians. Taller, more muscular and more dominate. Their penises could be larger. Could be a rumor? If we keep them out of our sports, we could keep winning. Oh no…Christ….that did not work. Maybe politics and business???
    – Middle-eastern origins: Somewhat dangerous (to the white American population), moderately unlikely to follow the orders of the white American population (~some of these guys like us and respect us and some will not listen to us like the guy from Fort Hood and that
    guy from Iraq? What’s his name? Oh yeah..S. Hussien)
    – East asian origins: Highly functional, not dangerous. (in other words, these Asians appear to be completely subservient to white Americans. They tend to be beta, quiet, short and wimpy. Plus, they don’t mind when we shag their women. They are too effeminate to snag our women. bonus!)

    Be a little more subtle with your insecurities pls..

    Like


  107. Video: What You Can’t Say on Campus Anymore:

    Like


  108. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/fashion/weddings/17VOWS.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=marriages

    What do you guys make of this? I like Lisa Lampanelli. She’s funny. I’m happy she found a nice guy.

    I think I will be alone in this opinion on this board 😛

    Like


  109. Dream Puppy,
    I’ve never heard her material, but my hairdresser told me she is really funny. I thought I remember her saying she only went out with black men, but her husband is white.

    Like


  110. [Editor: Selection bias. Immigrant race matters. Have you seen the stats for latin-american immigrants? They are actually going backwards after four generations in the US.]

    That is true. Children of Mexican immigrants are falling behind black students. That is no easy feat.

    On that note, I also think it is quite mean to import low skilled blue collar workers, as those are the jobs that are most scarce in this country. And we have a lot of poor people who need those jobs. Please note:

    “The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points.”

    Source: “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men” from Economica, Volume 77 Issue 306, Pages 255 – 282

    10% of immigration increased black unemployment and incarceration rates.

    If any of these lefty douchebags actually cared about the poor and not just IDENTITY POLITICS they would fight to end unskilled illegal (and legal) immigration.

    You’d like this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXHPmIcy-kI

    It’s LKY of Singapore comparing their immi policy to ours (“hahah, but you can’t have a nation of the fruit picker- hahaha”). Around the 1:30 mark. Rose changes the subject MUYYY RAPIDO.

    Like


  111. @some dude “America’s history is an immigrant one.”

    [EDITOR: Another complete and utter bullshit lie. America is a country *with* immigrants, not a country *of* immigrants.]

    That narrative was fabricated by foreigners with agendas.

    One example: The writer of the “New Collosus” (The “give us your poor, hungry, etc” poem put on the statue of liberty) was Emma Lazarus.

    From Wiki: She is known as an important forerunner of the Zionist movement.

    If you also look at the start of the change in immigration policy (1964) you can see that it is a particular group (Led by congressman Emmanuel Celler) that led the movement.

    America started out as a country with a Western European identity and culture. It was not a nation of just any immigrants, but ones with a cohesive culture and moral structure. Unfortunately this has been lost.

    I figure I will make Aliya to Europe before my life is over. USA is pretty much done.

    Like


  112. @LAURA- Her roasts are really funny. She is incredibly Un-PC.

    She always joked about dating black men b/c they were the only ones who would appreciate her big fat ass (and the fact that she paid their rent!). Now she said, she has been able to trade up to a white guy because she lost some weight. See! Funny shit! 🙂

    Like


  113. Now she said, she has been able to trade up to a white guy because she lost some weight.

    Wonder if she is going to pay his rent as well.

    (So much for women being supposedly ‘turned off’ by a guy’s supposed ‘lack of resources’ – LOL)

    Like


  114. dream puppy

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/fashion/weddings/17VOWS.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=marriages

    What do you guys make of this? I like Lisa Lampanelli. She’s funny. I’m happy she found a nice guy.

    I think I will be alone in this opinion on this board 😛

    Any broad who’s only played with even one black cock is immediately disqualified forever by any respectable white male culture.

    Like


  115. Uno – “Count your blessing. At least, Latino women tend to be thin.”

    No they’re not. They’re squat Meso-Americans with a hunter-gatherer metabolism in the land of McDonalds.

    Naive fool.

    AJ – “maybe blacks shouldnt be allowed to vote either, heck they just vote for affirmative action and welfare anyways, right?”

    Yeh, pretty much.

    Like


  116. Uno – “Count your blessing. At least, Latino women tend to be thin.”

    No they’re not. They’re squat Meso-Americans with a hunter-gatherer metabolism in the land of McDonalds.

    Naive fool.
    __

    Seriously dude, “Latino” women are not even all that thin in “Latin” America.

    McDonalds – LMAO!

    Like


  117. Indeed, you can pretty much chart the decline of the West with women’s suffrage, but it’s really the combination of women and the media, particularly television that is the real problem. Women in the age before television were mainly influenced by the men in their lives, especially fathers and husbands. Women are more susceptible to the sort of emotional propaganda spewed by the media and when they don’t have the balancing judgment of men they make the sort of destructive choices that are killing the West. That’s why married women are far more sensible in their political choices than ditzy single girls under the influence of MTV, etc. Older single women are just as stupid and destructive as the “Girl Power” set. There’s a dichotomy between the marriage sucks position and your socio-political positions. When you have less of the former you’ll get worse for the latter.

    Like


  118. Crazy cat lady? Make that crazy rat lady.

    Like


  119. I am very annoyed with your opinion of womans suffrage. I live in Finland, and we have a female president and a female prime minister, and almost exactly half of our ministers are women. In my opinion, Finland is doing well in general with all those women in parliament.

    Like


  120. “Women were allowed to vote in New Zealand in 1893 but they were not eligible until 1919. Also, Icelandic parliament didn’t have a real universal suffrage until the 20th century. Finland was the first state to give women the right to be a candidate in 1906 and Finland had the first female members of parliament in the world in 1907. Therefore, Finland was the first country with true universal democracy. Also all the minorities and the landless people had the same rights. At that time Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire and got full independence later, in 1917. In essence, Finland was a monarchy with its own parliament but the Russian tsar as the head of the state. I think you can’t call a country democratic if it excludes women, minorities or poor people from elections/eligibility. That is what has happened everywhere in the world until the 20th century. Finland was the first to have universal rights.”

    stupid fucks.

    “In my opinion, Finland is doing well in general with all those women in parliament.”

    in spite of them.

    Like


  121. Wow. Terrifying but amazing how many men are able to completely convince themselves that their views are totally rational, not based on emotion, and are comprised of all the true and relevant facts.

    First – the largest percentage of votes ever for a socialist in a U.S. election was when Eugene Debs ran as a socialist candidate for president in 1912. Before women had the right to vote. So please explain how that fits your theory.

    Second – how can you possibly rationalize blaming women and immigrants for what you see as the downward/liberal trend over the past 93 years or so while ignoring the larger imperatives of history and technological change that helped bring about these trends? Even if you view these trends negatively, your causal logic is flawed: you view feminism as the cause, rather than questioning what forces allowed the effect of feminism to take place at this point in history.

    In other words, you completely ignore the effect of the industrial revolution, the later digital revolution, and other related technological advances. For the vast majority of history preceding women’s suffrage, roughly 90% of all people were substance farmers, up to 40% of women died in childbirth, 30% of children died before reaching age 5, and life expectancy was around 45.

    Obviously women’s suffrage wasn’t what caused these figures to change for the better, but suffrage was a rather inevitable result of women not being consumed with producing enough children that some might reach adulthood, dying young, scrounging to feed their families, etc. Women didn’t need to be brainwashed somehow into feminism, the tech. advances that allowed them the surplus food and time to pursue education and connect with others about matters beyond basic survival gave many women the ability to demand more than a life of obedience to and baby-making for the men who were able to provide food.
    So for those who long to turn back the clock on feminism, realize that would entail reversing technological as well as political progress – have fun hoeing.

    Third – an enormous blind spot is demonstrated in claiming that emotionally-driven womens’ choice of security over freedom has led to damaging short-sighted policies. I’m female – what have I argued here that is irrational and emotionally-driven, for starters? At least Mukluk had a rational point that its more short-sighted to hoard wealth among a few while giving the poor nothing, since that has demonstrably led to overthrow of the existing order and revolution by the masses of have-nots.

    Furthermore, its conservatives lately who have been arguing for security over freedom – can’t hold even habeas corpus proceeding for Guantanamo prisoners in NY, too dangerous; Muslims can’t build near ‘ground-zero’, would be ‘insensitive’ (ironic that here conservatives suddenly argue that laws should be changed or ignored to protect others’ ‘sensitivities’); warrant-free wiretapping is justified to combat the terrorist threat, et. al.

    Oh, right, you don’t mean other people’s freedoms or equal rights, just your own ‘right’ to have the ‘freedom’ to keep every penny of your own money, while still driving on govt-built roads, calling govt-funded fire and police in an emergency, taking any and all gov’t subsidies, rebates, or benefits offered, and so on. So lets get rid of all govt spending, except for the military, whose budget is sacrosanct, despite being larger than every other advanced nation’s Combined. Because we should still have the ‘freedom’ to be able to invade and destroy any other country on earth – for our own security, of course.

    And lets not forget that ‘colonists’ are in no way the same thing as ‘immigrants’. Colonists have white skin and always make everything better for everyone, immigrants are brown and dirty and destroy our society.

    Right. I could go on. But whats the point? To those here (and I don’t like to dichotomize into ‘me’ v. ‘you’, but such seems the nature of this beast), so blind to their own emotionally-justified narrative as to overlook its irrationality and ahistoricality, I’m sure I’ll be viewed as a brain-washed liberal feminist, probably ugly and hairy and can’t get a decent man, no matter what I say.
    However, I invite anyone to try to logically dispute my points. I’m a (big) dog person anyhow.

    Like


  122. At least Mukluk had a rational point that its more short-sighted to hoard wealth among a few while giving the poor nothing, since that has demonstrably led to overthrow of the existing order and revolution by the masses of have-nots.

    Feudalism lasted a thousand years. How’s liberal democracy looking after 220 or so?

    Like


  123. John Stuart Mill believed that men are not intellectually above women and much of his research centered on the idea that women, in fact, are superior in knowledge than men.

    such a noble soul was he.

    Like


  124. So I see no of you can logically refute my points. Interesting.

    By all objective measures, liberal democracy is the world’s ascendant political philosophy, despite reactionary attempts such as fundamentalist islam and whatever crackpot philosophy is advocated here, to reverse this trend.

    Also, way to bolster my point that the technological and political progress that allowed us to evolve from feudalism led to the same ‘feminist liberal democracy’ you complain of. Good luck reversing history. You also have your history of ‘thousand years of feudalism’ wrong. Thank you for having the self-delusional ignorance to inadvertently prove my point, though.

    I’m not claiming that women are inherently superior in knowledge to men at all – just that they’re not inferior.

    [Editor: Define “inferior”. Women have an average 5 point IQ deficit to men by age 21.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html ]

    The sexes have different areas of intelligence in which each often tends to be superior due to evolutionarily-driven biological imperatives (for ex., men do tend to be better at engineering and other spatially-oriented tasks), but neither has a monopoly on intelligence or rationality.

    On those lines, its astonishing to me how completely irrational and emotionally-driven many of these ‘alpha’ arguments are, and so ironic that these qualities are instead projected onto whatever you dislike about perceived feminist attitudes. For example, all this crazy anger about feminists’ ‘victimology’. You’re the ones complaining about being the victims of feminism. Hmmm. And for all the talk of your civilization collapsing, one would think you were scavenging for food among a post-apocalyptic wasteland instead of typing at your computers in a country with the lowest tax rates (both in the developed world and in the history of our own country since industrialization), and the highest rate of income inequality (with the same white men who are bitching here by any measure on top).

    And your solution to being overrun by other races with paleolithic ideologies is to outbreed them through keeping women uneducated and subservient, suitable only for following orders and breeding as many babies as possible from age 18 on. Its demonstrably true worldwide that as women become more educated and have more options, they have less children. So instead of promoting education and progress that would lead to sustainable population levels worldwide, its better to keep all women uneducated baby-factories with no right .

    Like


  125. (Agh, accidentally pushed submit too soon, my idiot feminine incapacity with technology obviously…I digress).

    As I was saying – how incredibly irrational that you’d like women to be solely your breeders – more children to be fodder for your upcoming war, I suppose?
    Anyone with a speck of self-awareness would be able to read these things as the emotionally-driven and irrational anger of little boys who aren’t getting their way in everything and so lash out at anyone with a different viewpoint from their own unrealistic and unrealizable ideals. And then trying to justify it as logical and indisputable fact.

    Grow up you angry little boys.

    Like


  126. Firepower

    dream puppy

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/fashion/weddings/17VOWS.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=marriages

    What do you guys make of this? I like Lisa Lampanelli. She’s funny. I’m happy she found a nice guy.

    I think I will be alone in this opinion on this board 😛

    Any broad who’s only played with even one black cock is immediately disqualified forever by any respectable white male culture.

    hm. NO comment. It’s good to know your husband doesn’t mind a little diversity swimming around in

    his pool ha

    Like


  127. “Its demonstrably true worldwide that as women become more educated and have more options, they have less children. So instead of promoting education and progress that would lead to sustainable population levels worldwide, its better to keep all women uneducated baby-factories with no right .”

    Yeah, that’s why they are educating them.

    Do you get this, the education is not for education per se but so that instead of having families they get butthexxed and finally end up with cats.

    And if 1.3 birth rate per women is sustainable in your world view, then I’d ask you to ponder, why is immigration becoming such a necessary evil for such nations.

    “By all objective measures, liberal democracy is the world’s ascendant political philosophy, ”

    Why indeed, a feminized democracy is a tautology.

    “I’m not claiming that women are inherently superior in knowledge to men at all – just that they’re not inferior.”

    Your claim is baseless, misplaced, and flies in the face of scientific enquiry. Everyday drivel spouted by brain-dead morons.

    “The sexes have different areas of intelligence in which each often tends to be superior due to evolutionarily-driven biological imperatives (for ex., men do tend to be better at engineering and other spatially-oriented tasks), but neither has a monopoly on intelligence or rationality. ”

    Of course, if women didn’t have intelligence they couldn’t copy men. It takes brains to cheat too. But how does that make one rational? Or the desire to be rational?

    Like


  128. OK genius, game on (irony intended). Someone with the arrogance and misplaced beliefs in his preferred lies to try to ‘put me in my place’. This is so easy, I can do it half-drunk before I go to sleep… Damn, you are an ignorant fool.

    Yes, indeed, I do get that ‘they’ are being educated so that they can do something besides merely breeding endless children … and if it involves cats i don’t really give a fuck. And yes, Mr. Obvious, it IS why ‘they’ are educating them. As is obvious to anyone except the completely moronic (so yes, that is apparently excluding you as well), that was the point I was making. Is ‘butthexxed’ as scientific term you’ve picked up at some point in your exquisite education?

    OH, but we also have some numbers thrown out in an attempt to cloak this in a veil of scientific validity. Birth rate of 1.3 women? Hmm, don’t know where you’ve pulled this. U.S.’s latest census lists Caucasian birth rate at 1.9, roughly replacement rate, around 2.3 for blacks and hispanics. So replacement rates.

    As for immigration – I’m quite sure that its escaped your (cough) very knowledgeable attention – but the immigration rate in the U.S. has been dropping since 2000, before any recession, due to the vastly reduced birth rate in Mexico, one of the biggest demographic changes in the recent world. So they’re not quite the coming flood that fearmongers love to prophesy against.

    Beyond that, in Western Europe and elsewhere, as per my main point, you ignore the larger role of historical imperatives. Germany, for example, began importing mainly Turkish workers in the 1950s due to their catastrophic loss of manpower in WWII. However, with the increasing mechanization, globalization, and digitalization of the workforce, less labor and manhours are needed to achieve the same amount or more of productivity. So there is no longer a need to import immigrants to provide cheap labor, and correspondingly, there has been a drop in the birth rate, along with the education of females, which makes them more valuable to the family than as a breeder of said cheap labor.

    Moving on – perhaps you’re not aware of the definition of ‘tautology’. If you are, then your statement is even more of a non sequitur with no reasoning behind it. For the original thesis on this, I suggest you read Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man”, backed up with the latest figures.

    Since its painful to even look at, I’ll inform you first off that its spelled ‘inquiry’, not ‘enquiry’. Well versed in the scientific method, are we? Also of interest is how my claim that women are not inferior is the ‘type sprouted by brain-dead morons’ is thrown out as the most baseless conjecture, of a sort not suited to even the fringiest of hypotheses. Every day drivel? Strange that you can’t provide any actual facts or reasoning to back yourself up, as I have clearly done. The thought must be rejected before you’re forced to think about it too much or do any research on the subject, eh? Seems pretty emotionally-driven and irrational. Or in your words, a rejection of ‘the desire to be rational’.

    Trying to save your delusions by throwing out that old canard about women cheating and copying men? Probably didn’t occur to you that women could copy men BY cheating. A fairly rational act in some cases, although I wouldn’t endorse it. Just noticing how that though escaped your ‘masculine logic’.

    Taking down your idiotic attempts at rebuttal has been like shooting fish in a barrel. Next time maybe try putting on your thinking cap BEFORE you type out completely irrational and baseless non sequiturs.

    Like


  129. “Since its painful to even look at, I’ll inform you first off that its spelled ‘inquiry’, not ‘enquiry’. ”

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enquiry

    I mean you might be well-read, but seriously, do you need to go that far? or that low?

    “Birth rate of 1.3 women?”

    germany, I hadn’t looked up US, and there was a recent hullabaloo from them regarding immigration. Hence…

    “Someone with the arrogance and misplaced beliefs in his preferred lies to try to ‘put me in my place’.”

    Yeah, I screwed up, you are merely frothing at your mouth. Don’t bash your keyboard for it hurts me to think of a good piece of equipment getting ruined by some furious old lady.

    “Next time maybe try putting on your thinking cap BEFORE you type out completely irrational and baseless non sequiturs.”

    naah, too much effort for a woman that I met on the net.

    Like