Clik here to view.
Women destroying civilization
Most Men’s Rights Activists who wish women didn’t have the right to vote are savvy enough not to say so outright. Instead, they make up fairy tales about how men’s right to vote (at least here in the US) is contingent on men signing up for the draft.
This isn’t actually true — when the draft was abolished in 1973, men weren’t suddenly stripped of their voting rights. And while it is true that young men in the US have been required to register for the draft since 1980, there is no draft, nor will there be one at any point in the forseeable future, making registration about as much of a burden as signing a pledge that you won’t sprout wings and fly to the moon.
But not every anti-suffragette resorts to this sort of sophistry. Take, for example, the Alt-Rightster and woman-voting-opposer Axel Mckibbin.
In a recent post on his blog The Anti-puritan, McKibbin argues that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’re a bunch of lazy, emotional, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational cowards who will bring Western civilization crashing down around us if they aren’t stripped of their power, and soon.
In a post with the lovely title “Why women can’t be trusted with voting, free speech, national budgets, or power,” Mckibbin sets forth his case against women.
It’s not a very original one. He starts off by contrasting the rational, data-driven approach he thinks men bring to complicated problems with the emotional, irrational “feminine method.” As he sees it,
Men argue or accommodate information they don’t like, women stifle upsetting discussion with emotional tyranny and censorship, or simply bury their heads in the sand.
This wouldn’t be much of a problem if women had no power whatsoever, but for some silly reason men gave women the vote — and the world has been going down the toilet ever since.
[S]ince women have achieved the right to vote, power has shifted from the masculine to the feminine, and thus, from logic to tantrums, from debate to censorship.
Tantrums, huh? I guess he’s right. I’ve never seen men throwing tantrums when people disagree with them.
Oh wait.
Ok, ok, ladies! Don’t throw a fit about this! Let’s just assume that fellow is an outlier, and move on.
Like the rational, data-driven dude he is, McKibbin then throws out a free-associational list of all the things he thinks the ladies are doing wrongly and badly and femininely. Naturally, he provides no evidence for any of his assertions.
It is not a coincidence that the most challenging academic disciplines and hazardous jobs are male dominated. Women are psychologically, not just physically, weaker than men. They choose the easy road in everything. They censor rather than debate honestly in women’s studies departments. They chose easy majors that pay less. They chose easy low paying jobs rather than dangerous/difficult high paying ones. They lie about wage gaps rather than take responsibility and do difficult work.
Then, without even a pause for a paragraph break, he essentially accuses women of being a bunch of lying false rape accusers.
They believe that regret constitutes rape when they could instead take responsibility for their sexual choices.
And then, again without a pause, he offers what is either a weird, out-of-place dig at Hillary Clinton … or a suggestion that all the women of the world routinely mishandle top-secret material.
The screw up classified emails rather than do a minimum of ass-covering. They hate white men who they disagree with rather than Muslims who rape them.
Dude, I’m pretty sure women do hate Muslims — and Christians, and Hindus, and atheists — who rape them. They’re just a little less likely to blame all Muslims (or Christians, or Hindus, or atheists) for the actions of some Muslims, or Christians or, well, you know the rest.
Whenever a female is given a choice, she will choose the cowardly, dishonest, low agency method rather than the courageous, honest, high agency masculine method.
Yes, this is an actual sentence a human being wrote.
She would rather have handouts than balanced budgets for her children’s futures. She would rather censor than be upset. She would rather falsely accuse men of rape than take responsibility for her sexual choices when drunk.
And he’s back on that false accusation thing.
She would rather get divorced than work through the rough patches. She would rather vote stupidly for Bernie than understand economics. She would rather have a 15 dollar minimum wage than a job.
Uh, maybe because raising the minimum wage won’t actually cost us jobs?
She would rather vote for the wage increase than study the issues.
Or maybe she already studied the issue?
She would rather have alimony and child-support than a lasting marriage.
Or perhaps she would simply like to get out of a miserable marriage. And would like the father of her children to continue to pay some of the costs of raising them.
As I have said in other places, democracy is the ethnic form of government of white males. It is designed for high agency individuals of relatively equal capacity and relatively high intelligence. It simply does not work for low agency people.
Ah, racism. It’s about time you showed up. It wouldn’t be a true alt-right rant without some racism to go with all this misogyny.
To a male the state is a series of threats, to a female a series of benefits. Women cannot be drafted (yet), they are arrested at much lower rates, and given shorter sentences for the same crimes.
Hey, he managed to work the non-existent draft into the equation!
Men are arrested much more often than women, it’s true; they also commit many more crimes. The best way to reduce the number of men arrested for bullshit charges? Get the cops to stop racial profiling. And end the war on drugs.
Women do tend to get somewhat shorter sentences for the same crimes. This is partly because the men committing the same crimes tend to have longer criminal records. It’s also because some male judges are more likely to treat women more leniently. Female judges tend to be more egalitarian in their sentencing.
Despite men being victims of domestic violence, only women have state-supported domestic violence shelters.
Most shelters get only a small portion of their funding from the government. Many if not most also provide shelter for men in the form of hotel vouchers. There’s nothing stopping Men’s Rights activists from building shelters for men. Aside from the fact that they’re Men’s Rights activists, and MRAs don’t actually do crap for men.
Only men can be successfully prosecuted for raping women, despite the fact that women also rape men. Women get preferential treatment and custody in family courts. Men are essentially guilty until proven innocent in affirmative consent states.
None of this is true. Women are prosecuted — successfully — for rape. It doesn’t happen a lot, but it happens, and will almost certainly happen more in the future.
While more women than men get custody, that’s not the result of bias. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it’s because that’s what the divorcing parents agree to out of court. When men do go to court to ask for custody they often get it.
“Affirmative consent” laws apply to colleges, not criminal law, and they actually go a long way to clearing up anxieties about consent between partners. If you get an enthusiastic “yes” from a partner who is’t wasted before having sex, well, you know you have consent.
Men are taxed at higher rates.
If they earn more, yes.
Women receive benefits that men don’t. Since only women get custody, only women qualify for welfare. Even WIC means Women Infant Children program.
WIC is designed to provide assistance so poor kids don’t starve to death. Despite the name, WIC provides food vouchers and nutrition classes to men responsible for kids getting fed. True, it doesn’t provide cis men with the same benefits it provides pregnant and breastfeeding women, but that’s because cis men do not get pregnant.
The state treats males as disposable in war, letting them die homeless on the streets while paying females with five baby daddies to get pregnant at the taxpayer expense and receive food stamps.
Yes, it’s terrible that the government provides minimal assistance to keep babies and young children from starving. A quick Google search would have told you that men and women without children can also get food stamps.
It attacks marriage and men with alimony and child-support. The state is nothing but threats for men and benefits for women.
You know, rich women can end up paying alimony just like rich men. Fathers raising kids are entitled to child support from their exes, just as mothers are. And again, child support is designed to support children.
This is why women cannot be trusted with national budgets. Even if a woman possesses the courage to engage with uncomfortable facts she still has a disincentive to defend her national interest.
Er, what? Is it somehow in our national interest to let kids starve?
Combine with low agency she works to destroy her society, letting in rapugees, voting for handouts, creating guilty until innocent rape laws, censoring males in the workplace, filing bogus sexual harassment charges, and on and on. Here, low agency and incentives make her nothing but a threat to civilization.
Or at least to that portion of civilization that thinks it’s hilarious to make awful sexist jokes at work.
Her right to vote is a right to destroy other’s rights with redistribution, censorship, and false rape accusations, to bring in hostile raping refugees while attacking the conservative men who defend her as racists, even though Islam is not a race!
Yeah, it’s just a big coincidence that so many of the people the alt-right hate tend to be black or brown.
She will get a Muslim America in the bargain for her efforts. Women will never take equal responsibility, have equal agency, or be equally courageous. Strip them of power before they destroy civilization.
Honestly, the biggest threat to civilization right now is named Donald Trump, and women are a good deal more likely to vote against him than men.
I say, let’s keep women’s suffrage, at least for now.