Post: #1

For me, the absolute core of the redpill is that women should not be allowed to vote. I don't consider any man who thinks women should be allowed to vote to really understand the nature of women, or be redpill for that matter. There are plenty of scientific reasons and empirical data to back this up. If a significant amount of men on this forum do think women should vote, I take time to list up the reasons why they are wrong.





"Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Post: #2

Out of fairness they should be allowed to vote. Though they shouldn't. Or they should vote along with what their husband wants.

My ideal system is women get to vote on local community issues. Big state or federal issues more for men.

Post: #3

I don't think anyone should be restricted to what they can do purely because they were born that way. I believe in proving yourself, no matter your race, religion, or in this case, gender.

There should be an IQ test or some other kind of intelligence test that you must pass to vote, male or female. Just like if a woman is strong enough and can do what an able man can do, there is no reason why she can't be a firefighter.

Post: #4

(05-29-2015 11:53 AM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  Out of fairness they should be allowed to vote. Though they shouldn't. Or they should vote along with what their husband wants.

My ideal system is women get to vote on local community issues. Big state or federal issues more for men.

So a married man gets 2 votes while a bachelor gets one? I'm sensing i have to write all the reasons why women should not vote but I can't be bothered right now. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your reasoning. And what about unmarried women, they get to vote or what?

Britchard
"There should be an IQ test or some other kind of intelligence test that you must pass to vote, male or female."

So a 12 year old with a high IQ should be allowed to vote? A 5 year old with high IQ should be allowed to vote? Does maturity count for nothing? Women mature faster, men mature more, several years in difference . A 5 year old child genius is to immature to vote.

Post: #5

I'll comment on this because I've done work in this area.

Politics is inherently a tribal ritual. Men and women both tend to vote a certain way mostly depending on their geographic locality and its culture. Example: Most of England, specifically the North, tends to vote Conservative, and indeed if you look back at Northern England's past it's been a very Conservative place for many centuries (it was a hotbed of Catholicism in the 16th century, fought for Charles I in the Civil War, etc.).

In many respects voting is more of a local ritual than one based on reason. Locality and party identification supersede anything else, be it sex, race, or income. Sometimes an external issue upsets this natural equilibrium - like in New York City in 1993 when Giuliani narrowly beat Dinkins because of the perception that crime was out of control and due to fallout from the Crown Heights Riots, and then Mike Bloomberg with his billions won three successive times, but it took circumstances like that to shake the natural equilibrium that NYC is a very Democratic town.

So the problem once again isn't sex per se. I've spoken to men on many issues of importance regarding their voting patterns and they were equally as ignorant as the women were. The problem is a system where we let any dick or pussy vote because muh entitlements. This assumption fundamentally doesn't understand that voting is an act that commands the use of force, deadly if necessary. In favor of "equality," we are letting unqualified people command the use of force.

Britchard is right. There should, in my esteemed opinion, be three qualifications required for someone to vote, administered before each election, all of which can be met by any citizen, but which recognizes that voting is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right. There needs to be a system that keeps low quality voters away from the polls.

1. Age.

I'm going to follow my GamerGate comrade GMShivers' take on this (a woman whose opinions I trust more than most men's). The voting age should be raised to 25. This means you don't have 18 year olds that have no experience in life or SJW's in college being indoctrinated with leftism at the polls. At least by the age of 25 most people will be out of school and working for a few years.

2. Intelligence.

An IQ of at least 90 and knowledge about the fundamental laws of the land and the major issues in the election and the pros and cons of each position on them. A good citizens' time is better spent on studying these things than on reading Kim Kardashian's book on selfies. You want to vote? Well then earn it instead of demanding that your voice is heard just because you showed up.

3. A stake in the outcome.

Originally the Founding Fathers restricted voting in the U.S. to those who had something to lose. All democratic-republican systems stretching back to Athens usually had something like this. It was for a good reason. This selected for rationality instead of emotive diatribes. Of course, the modern requirements usually wouldn't be about birthrights or the like, I'm more egalitarian than that.

Usually this would entail a certain amount paid in taxes - a middle class income, essentially. If you're on the dole (which I don't in principal oppose, it may sometimes be necessary to help people that fall through the cracks), you don't have a stake. If you're mega rich banker or CEO that likes to move money and jobs offshore and avoid taxes, then that means you don't have much of a stake either.

This could mean other things too - such as owning a business, or if you are currently serving or have served in the military. Basically, an incentive to think before you vote, rather than just acting on tribal instinct.

I know this long ranting will come to nothing in the modern age, but I just want to share the conclusions I've come to based on where I've worked and what I've seen. Opening the floodgates of voting was one of the worst decisions we've ever made.

Edit: I also need to add on the other side of the equation that our campaign finance system, at least here in the U.S., is totally corrupt and needs massive restructuring, but that's not going to happen either.

Post: #6

In the 1959 novel Starship Troopers Robert A. Heinlein imagines a country where only citizens can vote, and the only way to become a citizen is to enlist in a branch of the military. Since I read it this year, I've been unable to shake this concept as a reasonable way to determine the voting population. Is this foolish?

And if that were the case, then I think women should be able to vote. As it stands, I don't think women should be able to vote. I also don't think that the vast majority of people are qualified to vote.

Post: #7

Not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but politics is just the elite gaming the masses. And voting is just comfort building.

I believe elections are more or less rigged and whoever is in power is just a puppet to some shadowy puppet masters.

Post: #8

Libertas and honorable man i agree with both of you. Except for Libertas idea that women should be able to vote.


Libertas please think about this. If voting is not a right but a power, why should women have the power to control men? Women only contribution to civilization is giving birth, they invent nothing, build nothing and maintain nothing that has to do with civilization. And with regards to giving birth, in Denmark the last time the birthrate was over 2.0 per woman was in 1968!


Arthur Schopenhauer on women.

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives."

So you see Libertas raising the age to 25 will only help with regards to men. This is by the way scientifically proven and i provide some links later.


Honorable Man. If a group of women were able to form a military themselves, not even that, just a group of women being able to construct a 5 floor building by themselves then yes they could also vote. As it is right now you have several billions women with massive freedom and wealth. You have yet to see a group of women come together and construct anything. Several slutwalks with thousands of women sure, but a group of women constructing a building, nope.

Pride Male. You might be right in the USA, but in Denmark with a population of 5,5 million people voting rights really do matter

Post: #9

The average single man isn't really a paragon of virtue either. I've been thinking one vote per married couple might be ok.

Post: #10

Dupe thread and females are not allowed to post on this forum.

Post: #11

(05-29-2015 12:55 PM)FuckTheDecline Wrote:  Honorable Man. If a group of women were able to form a military themselves, not even that, just a group of women being able to construct a 5 floor building by themselves then yes they could also vote. As it is right now you have several billions women with massive freedom and wealth. You have yet to see a group of women come together and construct anything. Several slutwalks with thousands of women sure, but a group of women constructing a building, nope.

In the book I referenced the main character admits that women are naturally better pilots. It is a novel, so I'm not saying it is based in evidence, but I personally think that a woman who is willing to die for her country is more valuable to that country than a man who would immediately surrender to an invading force. Again, I'm not basing this in any factual data or personal experience, I just thought that this author made a really convincing point.

Post: #12

(05-29-2015 01:06 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Dupe thread and females are not allowed to post on this forum.

Who is the female? And with regards to dupe thread I think Roosh will allow this topic to be discussed more then once, twice or thrice. It's to important a part of the redpill to not be discussed on a regular basis. So just chill with the get the fuck outta here gif.

Honorable Man. Yeah woman are not better pilots then men, they are not better at anything then men...Except at giving birth. Looks like i have to take the time to gather the scientific facts. There is an ROK article about how the US military tried to get a female fighter pilot and how she failed and ended up crashing and dying trying to land on a aircraft carrier.

Post: #13

I didn't think that would be the case, but it is a fictional story. The only point with which I find myself in agreement, or at least sympathetic, is that a woman who is willing to defend her home is more valuable than a man who is unwilling. I think that is a fairly uncontroversial sentiment?

Post: #14

Voting should be restricted in some way and women should be able to vote.

Post: #15

This seems like a troll thread. I've met plenty of brilliant women, and plenty of ignorant men. The redpill is about understanding and exploiting the true driving forces of male-femal relations, it has nothing to do with categorical discrimination based on gender, race, or anything else.

That said, implementing some restrictive criteria on who could vote isn't a bad idea. Intelligence, knowledge of issues, whatever the case may be. It would be impossible politically however so it's a moot point.

Post: #16

(05-29-2015 01:06 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Dupe thread and females are not allowed to post on this forum.

After the replies to the tattoo thread........You might be right.

Post: #17

Women shouldn't, because their nature and inclination to vote for big government drags down the society that has made it very comfortable for them in the first place.


America is nice because entrepreneurs, inventors, and builders (all men) pushed the boundaries and took wild risks, which ultimately gave us great building technology and infrastructure .
Women are not capable of doing any of this, and modern women are completely unaware of how men and our risk-taking nature is responsible for the success of U.S.A.

By voting for bigger government, regulation and taxes, and safety nets, they grind down the economic engine that's responsible for their high quality of life.

It's of no consequences for women to vote for higher taxes because most of them know they wont start a business or invent anything anyways. It's men doing all that shit.

I know a young woman pharmacist making 100k a year, taxes aren't even a voting issue for her, it doesn't even cross her mind. Women don't see the big picture in anything, they're not consciously on the same level as men.

Post: #18

One heck of a choice for a username OP, not to mention the troll worthy post.

The kicker, that quote at the end.

Verdict? Troll.

The only people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are the ones on some form of government dole (including student loans).

Post: #19

(05-29-2015 12:25 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'll comment on this because I've done work in this area.

Politics is inherently a tribal ritual. Men and women both tend to vote a certain way mostly depending on their geographic locality and its culture. Example: Most of England, specifically the North, tends to vote Conservative, and indeed if you look back at Northern England's past it's been a very Conservative place for many centuries (it was a hotbed of Catholicism in the 16th century, fought for Charles I in the Civil War, etc.).

Gotta pull you up on that. Not a clue as to reasoning, history etc, but it's the South that's Tory blue. North is where most of the Labour strongholds apart from those in London are.

Post: #20

This is not a troll thread...and you guys are pretty dumb for writing that. So let me enlighten you a bit.

http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women...ed-to-vote

This is listed as one of the most 35 important articles on ROK. Roosh himself does not think women should be allowed to vote. Karen Straughan does not think women should be allowed to vote. So far this poll shows that the majority of people on this forum do not think women should be allowed to vote. A lot of people do not think women should be allowed to vote. And yeah The Beast1, the level of cognitive dissonance to diss me for my name!??! The Beast1 what a great fucking name compared to FuckTheDecline, just lightyears better.

And what a fucking loser i am for quoting a great leader and conquer of men, clearly when quoting Napoleon Bonaparte your a troll.
So far its 67% against 33% so don't call this a fucking troll thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7kqqywey7g listen to the last 10 minutes of this interview, it is about womens right to vote.

http://www.returnofkings.com/52295/top-3...les-on-rok number 22

Post: #21

It's extremely irrational to exclude half of humanity from voting, as loss of political priveleges disincentivizes work ethic. Why would I bust my physical/mental well-being for a community that is ignorant of my concerns?

Voting should be earned, through an input system.

For example, say a $75,000 income tax system. So, consumption and excise taxes don't count.

- Intelligent people would naturally be able to vote faster, as high IQ individuals tend to have higher income.

- Those who are not necessary educated or brilliant can still earn it by entrepreneurship and hard work.

- A high number like $75,000 will generally take a decade or more into adulthood to achieve, therefore it omits the hyper-liberal phase of youth, but not long enough for those to reach the hypers conservative phase.

- When the finite number is achieved, the taxpayer will be required to provide pay stubs, business invoices and past tax records as evidence that the wealth wasn't endowed by parents or spouse, or winning the lottery.

- The ultra-wealthy will work hard to reach the $75,000 then work even harder as he/she is now liberated to do so.

As a result, those who have input into the country will reap the benefits.

Post: #22

Laziness is the reason of their mediocrity not lack of intelligence. They should be allowed to vote but not rule.

Post: #23

(05-29-2015 03:11 PM)Pontifex Maximus Wrote:  It's extremely irrational to exclude half of humanity from voting, as loss of political priveleges disincentivizes work ethic. Why would I bust my physical/mental well-being for a community that is ignorant of my concerns?

Do you think women were oppressed before they were allowed to vote? And what kind of work ethic among women are you talking about? They don't build anything, they don't construct anything, they don't invent anything and they don't maintain anything. If every single women stopped working today, it would not really matter.

Try and read this article and look at the bottom to see what women contribute with in regards to actual work. They do nothing, they don't matter in the workforce.
And by the way that is another woman who does not think women should be allowed to vote.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-wo...ork-today/



Kabuli. What animal is more intelligent. A lion or a zebra? Most likely they are equals in intelligence. But they evolved differently in using their iq. A man and a woman with an iq of 120 still have different brains that evolved for different tasks.

Post: #24

Democracy is like Santa Claus. We have all been brought up to believe in it and do not want to let it go. But it is clearly a sham.

We are set up to get a Bush-Clinton showdown, which should make anyone realize our government is just being traded between powerful ruling clans.

We have all mostly lived abroad in countries where we could not vote and generally liked our experiences in societies where we were disenfranchised.

We all see huge flaws in U.S. society for which democracy offers no solutions.

It is time to let go. Democracy is a sham. China and Russia are leading the way in showing that democracy is not the alpha and omega of modernsystems of governance.

You can look to Latin America. Mexico lost its one-party state and promptly descended into a its drug war. Pinochet and Castro have both run their countries in many ways better than their democratic neighbors. Hugo Chavez got elected and plunged his country down the toilet.

You can compare Ukraine and Belarus, and see again that while neither is paradise, one clearly has order and stability while the other after trying democracy is in a state of chaos while foreigners are ripping it apart.

There is no magic to voting. You can have a good or bad elected leader, a good or bad unelected leaders.

Post: #25

If you're a citizen and expected to pay taxes and obey the laws of the land, you should have voting representation, really that simple.

Also the idea of an intelligence test or an income floor is stupid, and something like that if implemented would quickly be hijacked and abused by the reigning status quo to keep certain people out of the voting pool. See "literacy tests" for a historical example.