Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
Author Message
Samseau Offline
Innovative Casanova
Gold Member

Posts: 12,983
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 268
Post: #51
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)

Quote:Hey guys, i will just give you some stats to use when you debate the female role in politics. I hope the info will be useful.
Of all US men, 52 percent voted for Trump, and 41 for Clinton. Of all US women, 41 percent voted for Trump, and 54 for Clinton.
52 percent of white women voted for Trump, compared to 62 percent of white men. The difference between white women who voted for Trump and those who voted for Clinton is only 9 percent (52 vs 43 percent), a ratio of 1,2 to 1. The difference between white men who voted for Trump and those who voted for Clinton is whooping 31 percent (62 vs 31 percent), a ratio of 2 to 1.
The majority of college educated white women voted for Clinton (51 vs 44 percent), the majority of college educated white men voted for Trump (53 vs 39). One could conclude that in college, women are more easily brainwashable than men. (1)
In the 2016 election, white women who were under the guidance of men (married women) voted right. Single white women without male guidance - those who were left to their own devices and their own female nature, voted left. Unlike women though, both married and single white men voted right. (2)
Among white men, the US Republican Party holds a wide 61% to 32% advantage in leaned party identification. Among white women, about as many registered voters identify as Republican or lean toward the Republican Party (47%) as say they identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (46%). (3)
Canada: Justin Trudeau's Liberals, who promised to import muslim refugees, led among women, while Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who want to ban the burka, led among men. (4)
Britain: Women are 40 percent of UKIP supporters, majority of Labour supporters (5)
France: Women are 44 percent of Front National voters (6)
Sweden: women are 36 percent of Swedish Democrat voters (7)
Germany: women are 37 percent of AFD voters. A majority of women support Merkel, (66 percent for), a majority of men oppose Merkel (55 percent against) (8)
Austria: a majority of women voted for pro-immigration president, a majority of men voted for anti-immigration president. (9)
Suffrage: Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives. (10)
Immigration: women are more supportive of muslim immigration than men. (11)
Big Government: women are more supportive of big government than men. (12)
Gays and ethnic minorities: women are more supportive of gays and ethnic minorities than men. (13)
Islam: Women are 75 percent of those who convert to Islam (14)
Finally, contrary to popular myths, in terms of voting patterns, a higher proportion of male voters supported the Nazi party compared to female voters. (15)

Top comment from this thread:

Quote:Currently, there is a very high birth rate in Africa and in Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3,1 in Muslim countries. Africa is projected to have 4 billion people, and MENA 1 billion people. Nigeria alone is projected to have 400 million people in 2050. In most Latino countries, there is a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brasil. Birth rate is positive in India as well. On the other hand, white female TFR in the US is 1.75, in Europe 1.5, in Canada 1.5. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in the event of race mixing, you will need more than 2.1 in order to simply sustain the white population at one level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who are having kids are usually non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborn and more than 38 percent of French newborn are already non-white. White female TFR is negative in all western countries. Therefore white people will disappear if they do not change their behavior.
In all feminist countries, you have negative birth rates that could lead to the disappearance of the native population if birth rates are not raised. Whites in the US are projected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies you have massive third-worldization, lowering of IQ, race mixing with blacks, conversions to Islam, etc. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden, is dying right now due to third world/Muslim immigration. Muslims are outbreeding Europeans in almost all European countries.
Barbarism, to paraphrase Lenin, is the last stage of feminism. Sparta, where women became very influential, died due to low birth rate. In decadent Rome, they were ultimately forced to tax single people in order to get them to marry and have kids. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire - low birth rates, people did not want to get married, men thought that women became unmarriable, infanticide, depopulation, extreme promiscuity, easy divorce, repeal of anti-luxury laws, etc.. Those masses of low IQ people swarming the Europeans are merely the symptom, not the cause. They are just like the opportunistic infection that takes advantage of an already weakened organism. The real cause though, is the weak immune system of the organism.
Luxury corrupts. Feminism is decadent behavior that can only occur in rich and powerful countries, who feel that they are not threatened by anything, and can therefore engage in various types of decadent behaviors that are actually weakening them. J. D. Unwin found that after a nation becomes prosperous, it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, he says, could be irrevocable. The British historian Sir John Glubb noticed that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilizations, before they collapsed. These are the stages of civilizations:
The age of outburst (or pioneers).
The age of conquests.
The age of commerce.
The age of affluence.
The age of intellect.
The age of decadence. (We are here. Decline could also be observed, as the western share of the world's economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region of the world). The age of Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness (for example by building border walls), pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, feminisation, the welfare state, a weakening of religion. Decadence is due to: too long a period of wealth and power. Selfishness, love of money, the loss of a sense of duty.
The age of decline and collapse.
This is how feminism destroys itself:
It destroys itself due to its low, negative birth rates, leading to population decline of the feminised group. (You could clearly observe this in Europe, where there is Islamization going on and European cultures and peoples are dying). In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate are from countries that banned abortion (Argentine and Ireland). One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party (who wants to increase the german birth rate), is because they don't want to be mothers or to have more than one kid.
It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (dumb women have more kids, while smart and career women are often childless). For example 40 percent of German college educated women are childless. This leads to IQ drop. Right now the IQ of western populations is dropping, and east Asian students are now outperforming western students according to PISA surveys, with some eastern european countries now outperforming western countries as well.
It destroys itself because according to various studies, women are less xenophobic, and more foreigner friendly, compared to men. They will welcome everyone. In other words, hello refugee crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, willingly took more refugees per capita (who are mostly young single black and Islamic males) than anyone else in Europe. And many people are calling Germany crazy for taking lots of Muslim refugees. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of western converts to Islam are women, as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with blacks. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open the borders. Feminist groups allied themselves with muslims to protest against Donald Trump. Feminist groups such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot are also known to support open borders. Recently, it was found that British women travel to Calais to help refugees and to have sex with them in the "Jungle" migrant camp. This is happening in other european countries as well. Do you think that women in Europe do not know that it is mostly young migrant males coming in?
When low IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ "Give me, Give me, I'm Victim" people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won't find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything.
Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.
In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jews) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in.
Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.
Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed – whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes.
So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group.
Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females don’t care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open it’s borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group.
All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.

I'm noticing more and more men are questioning female suffrage. Banning female suffrage is already the accepted consensus on the chans, and people openly talk about it on r/theRedPill.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Twitter.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2017 03:44 AM by Samseau.)
05-17-2017 03:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 13 users Like Samseau's post:
Leonard D Neubache, debeguiled, SirTimothy, [email protected], Enoch, RaccoonFace, Liberty Sea, DJ-Matt, Professor Fox, Renzy, estraudi, Handsome Creepy Eel, Felix88
Liberty Sea Offline
Alpha Male

Posts: 1,279
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 15
Post: #52
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
Unless America is taken over by a dictatorship or descend into the law of the jungle, women's voting rights will not be revoked. Not even a war with China, or some nukes dropped on America, can achieve that.

If you allow men to vote, sooner or later women will gain the right to vote.

One problematic idea that the West has created is the doctrine of human right. When voting right has come to be viewed as a human right, then allowing women to vote will sooner or later come to be considered a categorical moral imperative instead of merely a matter of practical prudence - it's simply the logical conclusion of the doctrine. Once society has come to perceive a certain group as possessing personhood and human right, then it's practically impossible to reverse this process without abandoning the sociopolitical framework of human right, without rejecting the very basis of legitimacy of the system itself. This idea of human right cannot be overthrown without an upheaval that will remove democracy itself. This idea, however, has taken too deep a root in the Western mind, while its hold in the minds of those in other cultures is still superficial.

(05-22-2017 10:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  China is a very high stress place to live. Everyone is cold and calculating, unless they want something from you, at which point they have acting skills to rival Hollywood... You can't even trust your own instincts, because if you allow yourself to be swayed by how likeable someone is, there's a good chance you'll pay for it down the road.

(03-19-2016 10:13 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  [N]o one is "planning" anything. They have no power to "plan" it... They can't even control one goofy Ohio governor and son-of-a-mailman, LOL.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017 06:08 AM by Liberty Sea.)
05-25-2017 05:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElFlaco Offline
Gold Member

Posts: 723
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 18
Post: #53
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
Repealing the women's vote is a non-starter idea. Zero chance of it going anywhere, ever. With respect to our host, you have to be out of touch with the public not to see this. No Overton window shift will ever get us there. It's a fascinating thought experiment but to seriously debate it publicly as a policy option is counterproductive, discrediting other ideas here by association.

Stopping immigration? Changing citizenship rules? Now those are within reach.
05-25-2017 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes ElFlaco's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
Samseau Offline
Innovative Casanova
Gold Member

Posts: 12,983
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 268
Post: #54
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
(05-25-2017 11:46 AM)ElFlaco Wrote:  Repealing the women's vote is a non-starter idea. Zero chance of it going anywhere, ever. With respect to our host, you have to be out of touch with the public not to see this. No Overton window shift will ever get us there. It's a fascinating thought experiment but to seriously debate it publicly as a policy option is counterproductive, discrediting other ideas here by association.

Stopping immigration? Changing citizenship rules? Now those are within reach.

I agree that debating it publically is a non-starter, but the power of an idea cannot be underestimated. What seems impossible today is reality 100 years from now. No one can never stop an idea whose time has come.

The internet is the perfect place for the seeds of social change. Simply convincing men that it is a good idea is how the process starts.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Twitter.
05-25-2017 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Samseau's post:
RaccoonFace, estraudi
Paracelsus Online
International Playboy
Gold Member

Posts: 4,347
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 119
Post: #55
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
Maybe some state could shitlord by proposing to demand citizenship papers of any female illegal immigrant who tries to vote.

The 19th Amendment only forbids prejudice on the grounds of sex against citizens of the United States... Big Grin

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
05-25-2017 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paracelsus's post:
YossariansRight Online
True Player
Gold Member

Posts: 2,371
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 32
Post: #56
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
There's a poll I saw regarding building the Mexican Border Wall that shows among married men who have children and own their property: It shows 75% supporting the wall, 25% opposing it.

That's a very good representation of the electorate as the Founding Fathers envisioned the process working.

“….and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say… we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.

- President Donald J. Trump
05-26-2017 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like YossariansRight's post:
Samseau, estraudi, Handsome Creepy Eel, iop890, Professor Fox
Jean Valjean Offline
Chubby Chaser
Gold Member

Posts: 485
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 28
Post: #57
RE: Repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage)
(02-16-2017 10:50 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  Assuming you even have families ... husbands and wives should not be voting against each other.

I know.. look at the problems it causes:

News Leader Wrote:STAUNTON - For Lee Ann Kinkade, of Staunton, going to vote on Election Day is magical, she says. She's filled with "bipartisan patriotism" on these days, excited to participate in the nation's democratic process.

But as Kinkade, who's disabled, headed into Gypsy Hill Park Gym on Tuesday to vote in the governor primaries, she instead said she felt "dehumanized" by the treatment she received from one of the poll workers.

With her disability, her hands shake and she isn't able to fill in the bubbles on the paper ballots, she said. There's assistive equipment for this though that makes it possible for disabled voters to make their election selections while keeping their ballots confidential.

Each ward in Staunton is equipped with one of the handheld voting devices, called audio-tactile interfaces, which are compliant with the American Disabilities Act, said Elizabeth Young, vice chairwoman of the Staunton Electoral Board.

Kinkade said that when she requested to use one of these machines though to vote Tuesday, she was met with resistance from a poll worker who allegedly suggested she just have her husband fill out her ballot for her to make things easier. She wasn't willing to waive her right to a secret ballot though, which she's supposed to be assured of under the Help America Vote Act. . . . .

Kinkade said she feels it's important to press this issue because while she's in a healthy relationship with her husband, she knows there are other disabled people out there who are in "abusive" ones.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2017 09:05 AM by Jean Valjean.)
06-19-2017 08:50 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Jean Valjean's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, Samseau
Post Reply 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
Rainbow Deploraball - January 19th, Washington DC Gmac 159 24,216 03-09-2017 01:07 AM
Last Post: CynicalContrarian
  Repealing the 14th Amendment EDantes 57 8,164 02-13-2017 10:50 PM
Last Post: John Michael Kane
Information Child support and the 14th Amendment EDantes 9 3,650 08-30-2016 03:02 PM
Last Post: RatInTheWoods

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication