Should women have the right to vote?

Should women be allowed to vote?


  • Total voters
    101

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
No, and neither should most men.

Voting itself is a bit cringe. It’s just a method the elite uses to convince the plebs that they have political agency. Your vote doesn’t matter. Politicians will just do what their globalist overlords tell them to do.

A better question would be whether women should be in politics at all. With extremely rare exceptions of God-bearing women (Deborah in the Book of Judges, Emperor Irene of Constantinople), the answer is no.
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
Agree with the above from @Eusebius Erasmus.

There's certain things that make someone more qualified to have a say in society. Owning land is crucial. If there are taxes, being a net tax payer. Having children so you have a stake in the future. Being a citizen and being from that country as well of course. Beyond that societies should be able to determine additional rules for the preservation of their society. Nobody expects the Palestinian occupation state to allow Palestinians to vote under any circumstances.

Very many world leaders don't meet those general guidelines above. How many European leaders have children? Very few. Isn't that strange?

Males are innately more concerned with protecting a society, while women are innately more concerned with inclusion and making sure people are comfortable. That is perfect for raising children, but not a country, unless you want a country of children and foreign invaders. Women also take more out of government than they put in, and will vote for more welfare policies, every time, essentially making the government their husband.

Of course we find ourselves in a very strange and cursed time. I don't like democracy, it clearly does not work, and even under ideal circumstances it will eventually deteriorate. Most of those criteria I listed above were originally how America was run and look where we are now, where even non-citizens and felons are voting, and are encouraged to do so in some places. Even monarchy was only reluctantly permitted by God, but at least in that situation we had one person accountable to God, someone we could pray for and rally behind, who was part of no team, ideology, or party. Beyond that I'm not aware of one saint who was a democratically elected prime minister, president, parliamentarian, or senator, but there are many king, queen, emperor, prince, and princess saints, which should speak for itself.
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
No, and neither should most men.

Voting itself is a bit cringe. It’s just a method the elite uses to convince the plebs that they have political agency. Your vote doesn’t matter. Politicians will just do what their globalist overlords tell them to do.

A better question would be whether women should be in politics at all. With extremely rare exceptions of God-bearing women (Deborah in the Book of Judges, Emperor Irene of Constantinople), the answer is no.
^ ^

This. And if I recall correctly, Deborah was a judge at a time when all the men in the Israelite leadership were weak.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
A Christian monarchy, with a staunch and pious Christian monarch, that's the only hierarchical system that would work. It doesn't matter what system you have, whether it's under the guise of democracy or whatever, there's always someone/a tiny elite in charge. Who's in charge of the ''great democracy'' the US? The Jews, some bankers, some tech elite. It doesn't matter what you vote it is steered anyway. And by the way perception is based on information and if they control the info flow they control the outcome of elections more or less indirectly, or at least they can steer them largely. Point being is this: we live in a world where there are continous (dark) forces battling to steer the masses a certain way. So I'd agree with Eusebius that voting is a ludicrous illusory system, that gives a fake impression of who's in charge, thereby making it more insidious than a straightout elite system (bad case) or a Christian monarchy (good case).
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
A Christian monarchy, with a staunch and pious Christian monarch, that's the only hierarchical system that would work. It doesn't matter what system you have, whether it's under the guise of democracy or whatever, there's always someone/a tiny elite in charge. Who's in charge of the ''great democracy'' the US? The Jews, some bankers, some tech elite. It doesn't matter what you vote it is steered anyway. And by the way perception is based on information and if they control the info flow they control the outcome of elections more or less indirectly, or at least they can steer them largely. Point being is this: we live in a world where there are continous (dark) forces battling to steer the masses a certain way. So I'd agree with Eusebius that voting is a ludicrous illusory system, that gives a fake impression of who's in charge, thereby making it more insidious than a straightout elite system (bad case) or a Christian monarchy (good case).
Personally, I like the concept of Judges.

Edit: I suppose a more pious man may ask the obvious: do you though?
 
Last edited:
"Having children so you have a stake in the future"

I would disagree with you on this one. In my experience the biggest cucks / sell-outs are married men - they have too much to lose. Would the rooshvforum.com exist if Roosh was married with children, working a corporate job, and living in the D.C. suburbs? The majority of family men are too invested in the system.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
No.

Only military members who are granted citizenship after service should be allowed to vote OR men who are net tax payers may also vote.

Birth right citizenship should be abolished.

While there are plenty of smart women who vote correctly... their net vote is in the in the wrong direction.

Skin in the game is what the founders wanted.

Garbage is what it has become.
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
"Having children so you have a stake in the future"

I would disagree with you on this one. In my experience the biggest cucks / sell-outs are married men - they have too much to lose. Would the rooshvforum.com exist if Roosh was married with children, working a corporate job, and living in the D.C. suburbs? The majority of family men are too invested in the system.
Why would anyone who doesn’t have any generational interest beyond themselves be permitted to influence future generations’ interests?
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
"Having children so you have a stake in the future"

I would disagree with you on this one. In my experience the biggest cucks / sell-outs are married men - they have too much to lose. Would the rooshvforum.com exist if Roosh was married with children, working a corporate job, and living in the D.C. suburbs? The majority of family men are too invested in the system.
First off, calling married men sell-outs/ cucks is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard - they are men who sacrifice their free will, their free time, and their easy financial life for the sake of someone else. Paul writes extensively about this.

Single people in general are a scourge on society. I'm not talking about RVF'ers by and large - but the people on this forum are not representative of society as a whole, and we're more flawed than we think, even now. When I was a single man I would spend the weekends drinking, causing trouble, watching porn, smoking, playing several hours of video games a day, etc. Single women sleep around, destroying their ability to bond with a future husband, and turning themselves into wine aunts, they get hooked on SSRI's because of their unnatural lifestyle and subconsciously try to destroy society and hurt men as payback.

The institution of marriage raises the moral bar for people, it causes them to mature and end the party phase of life. They become concerned with the future society their children and grandchildren grow up in.

Sounds like you prefer single men because you're itching for a more activism and revolution. This is true, more single men tend to lead to revolution, but it almost never turns out well like you're imagining it will. Look at recent revolutions. China. Russia. France. America. Cuba. Cambodia. Various South American and African civil wars/coups. Revolutions carried out by young men desiring change for the better. How many of them actually resulted in a better society?

If we're talking single monastics, that is completely different; they are married to the Church, and with that comes the same, or more selflessness as marriage. Instead of revolutions they spur repentance.
 
Top