Archive for the ‘suffrage’ Category

Link dump

October 23, 2009

Putting girls in their place

This PUA post is about why alpha males are the only ones who can really keep women’s behavior in civilized bounds. Beta males and other women can’t do it.

This makes it all the more important for desirable males to whip girls into shape whenever they get out of control. First, they are less likely to call acceptable acts “misbehavior” because they aren’t competing with the girl, aren’t bitter or resentful — they have enough choices that one girl isn’t a drop in the bucket — and have no genetic stake in how she behaves. Ideally this would be her boyfriend or husband, but even they may not step up enough because they’ll incur a higher cost in the form of a potential strain on the relationship’s harmony.

Women’s suffrage over time By John R. Lott, Jr.

He’s the guy who wrote Freedomnomics, in which he demonstrated how allowing women to vote causes the expansion of government.

Every Feminist’s Nightmare?

Rumor has it that when Professor Walter Block presented a lecture at Loyola College recently in which he argued that free-market competition diminishes rather than exacerbates the male/female “wage gap” the entire College administration, and the majority of the economics department, collectively swooned. There are even reports that they all collapsed simultaneously on the same swooning couch.

The Socratic Ideal of Student-Teacher Sex

A feminist idealizes cougar teachers molesting boys:

But I envy the relationship those Greeks had, back when terms like “statutory rape” didn’t exist. It strikes me as so perfectly symbiotic: The beautiful blank slate of a student takes knowledge from his wise and wizened mentor, and in exchange gives the joy of fresh enthusiasm. And sex. I won’t be so flip as to ask “What’s wrong with that?” (Obviously, there are many unpleasant examples of the Socrates figure taking advantage of someone vulnerable and non-consenting.) But I will say that, in its idealized form, doesn’t that sound kind of nice?

The True Horror in Hitchcock Films

San Francisco’s actual Chief of Police now is an affirmative-action diminutive Chinese-American female from the accounting department who is the laughingstock of the police force. The rate of unresolved murder cases in San Francisco is so high that the city has tried, unsuccessfully, to solicit help by offering $100,000 rewards to people who would come forward with information.

At a loss, the city’s leaders elected what else but a transgender person, Theresa Sparks, as President of the San Francisco Police Commission. Mr./Ms. Sparks’ qualifications for the job consist in his/her managing a vibrator company which was recently running a special under the slogan, “August is Anal Sex Month; 15% off select Anal Toys.”

To bolster this team with some serious dose of law-enforcing testosterone, San Francisco got itself a female District Attorney who bestows additional glory on the city by being half Tamil-Indian and half-black. Kamala Davis Harris refuses to seek the death penalty for murder, which is the law of the land, plea-bargains murder cases, and fails to prosecute criminals arrested with firearms. San Francisco police officers take a dim view of this, what with their own being murdered by criminals that the District Attorney has failed to prosecute. But the need to keep their jobs muzzles their mouths.

Of late, Ms. Davis Harris has made the news due to her office’s failure to prosecute Edwin Ramos, a vicious Mara Salvatrucha gangbanger and illegal Honduran alien, who had been arrested on illegal gun possession charges, and then released instead of being at the least deported. One month later Mr. Ramos would be arrested for the murder of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. The murder weapon has since been linked to two other murders.

San Francisco’s metrosexual mayor is given to utterances like, “You know we’re the only city — I think we’re the only big city in America … there may be an exception or two … that women are running the Police Department, Fire Department and our emergency services. That’s why I feel so safe.”

Women once again demonstrate that they can’t be trusted with responsibility for other people. Allowing women to play at being police officers or D.A.’s is murdering the citizens of the city these women are messing around in.

A Surplus of Women Means Fewer Proposals and Shorter Skirts

Here’s something more positive: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative

Advertisements

Women, witchcraft, and the vote

July 12, 2009

Well, it looks like the feminist idiots have gotten bored with trolling me for recommending that women not put themselves in situations where they would be easily rapeable. When I found out that the hysterical male feminist wasn’t just whining about me, he was telling women that it is safe to strip and get into bed with men they have no intention of having sex with, I banned him for aiding and abetting rape by giving dangerous advice. But he kept commenting, even though he knew I was deleting his comments unread. This guy claims that women can take off their clothes and get into bed with him and he’ll “respect” it when they tell him no, but he won’t respect it when a woman tells him, repeatedly, that she’s not interested in wasting her time on conversation with someone as stupid as he is. Maybe he figures that when I told him, “No, I’m not going to have a conversation with you,” and then proceeded to discuss the viewpoints he expressed with smarter people, I was giving him “mixed messages”. I guess I’ve learned a lesson about giving stray morons who comment here even the slightest encouragement.

On to today’s links. First, the Editrix has posted debunking the Margaret Murray feminist crap about witch-burnings.

Burning of witches was almost unknown and strictly rejected by the popes. In the 17th century, when all over the Protestant regions north of the Alps the stakes were burning (there is an estimation of 25,000 victims), not a single witch trial was performed. In Spain, about 300 “witches” were burnt at the stakes, in strongly Catholic Ireland 2.

The frequently traded number of 9 million victims can, interestingly, be traced back to Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the “Third Reich”, who intended to fuel thus anti-Catholic resentments. In fact, even his “research team” couldn’t fabricate more than 30,000 victims.

This is one of those things liberals try to gloss over these days: one of the many things that Nazis had in common with today’s liberals is that they practiced pseudo-pagan religions. After they had won the war and finished killing off the Jews, their plan was to abolish Christianity, which they saw as a Jewish sect. Today liberals try to demonize Christianity, but neopaganism (Nazis) and secularism (communists) have killed more people in a few decades than Christianity’s worst moments did for centuries.

Thanks to feminism, the history of the European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become ideologized and bent out of shape to their liking and, interestingly, 9 million is the number incorrectly and widely bandied about. While witch hunts were seen in the early 1900s as outbreaks of religious hysteria for which an ever-sinister and oppressive Catholic church was responsible, in the Seventies, feminist revisionist historians claimed that they had been a systematic campaign by the patriarchal system to do away with the remnants of — Yeah, right! — goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions.

A Razor for a Goat is a detailed debunking of Margaret Murray’s revisionist history of witchcraft.

Anywhere, more evidence to throw on the pile that women have no business voting: Unmarried Women Deliver…Big Time

Last night unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin according to calculations based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. This margin exceeds the support Obama generated among both younger voters and Hispanic voters. Unmarried women similarly supported Democratic House candidates by a 64 to 29 percent margin, matching their progressive support in the 2006 elections.

In fact looking back at martial status, unmarried women consistently generated large progressive margins, but never as large as we saw last night. In fact, there emerged a 44-point difference in the behavior of married women and unmarried women. If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women’s vote and with it, the White House.

Ann Coulter once figured it up and said that if we threw out the female votes, there would only have been one Democrat president since women’s suffrage happened. I rest my case!

Also, Roissy:

Why There Is A Gender Gap

In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta.

Women, witchcraft, and the vote

July 12, 2009

Well, it looks like the feminist idiots have gotten bored with trolling me for recommending that women not put themselves in situations where they would be easily rapeable. When I found out that the hysterical male feminist wasn’t just whining about me, he was telling women that it is safe to strip and get into bed with men they have no intention of having sex with, I banned him for aiding and abetting rape by giving dangerous advice. But he kept commenting, even though he knew I was deleting his comments unread and not reading his blog posts. This guy claims that women can take off their clothes and get into bed with him and he’ll “respect” it when they tell him no, but he won’t respect it when a woman tells him, repeatedly, that she’s not interested in wasting her time on conversation with someone as stupid as he is. Maybe he figures that when I told him, “No, I’m not going to have a conversation with you,” and then proceeded to discuss the viewpoints he expressed with smarter people, I was giving him “mixed messages”. I guess I’ve learned a lesson about giving stray morons who comment here even the slightest encouragement.

On to today’s links. First, the Editrix has posted debunking the Margaret Murray feminist crap about witch-burnings.

Burning of witches was almost unknown and strictly rejected by the popes. In the 17th century, when all over the Protestant regions north of the Alps the stakes were burning (there is an estimation of 25,000 victims), not a single witch trial was performed. In Spain, about 300 “witches” were burnt at the stakes, in strongly Catholic Ireland 2.

The frequently traded number of 9 million victims can, interestingly, be traced back to Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the “Third Reich”, who intended to fuel thus anti-Catholic resentments. In fact, even his “research team” couldn’t fabricate more than 30,000 victims.

This is one of those things liberals try to gloss over these days: one of the many things that Nazis had in common with today’s liberals is that they practiced pseudo-pagan religions. After they had won the war and finished killing off the Jews, their plan was to abolish Christianity, which they saw as a Jewish sect. Today liberals try to demonize Christianity, but neopaganism (Nazis) and secularism (communists) have killed more people in a few decades than Christianity’s worst moments did for centuries.

Thanks to feminism, the history of the European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become ideologized and bent out of shape to their liking and, interestingly, 9 million is the number incorrectly and widely bandied about. While witch hunts were seen in the early 1900s as outbreaks of religious hysteria for which an ever-sinister and oppressive Catholic church was responsible, in the Seventies, feminist revisionist historians claimed that they had been a systematic campaign by the patriarchal system to do away with the remnants of — Yeah, right! — goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions.

A Razor for a Goat is a detailed debunking of Margaret Murray’s revisionist history of witchcraft.

Anywhere, more evidence to throw on the pile that women have no business voting: Unmarried Women Deliver…Big Time

Last night unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin according to calculations based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. This margin exceeds the support Obama generated among both younger voters and Hispanic voters. Unmarried women similarly supported Democratic House candidates by a 64 to 29 percent margin, matching their progressive support in the 2006 elections.

In fact looking back at martial status, unmarried women consistently generated large progressive margins, but never as large as we saw last night. In fact, there emerged a 44-point difference in the behavior of married women and unmarried women. If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women’s vote and with it, the White House.

Ann Coulter once figured it up and said that if we threw out the female votes, there would only have been one Democrat president since women’s suffrage happened. I rest my case!

Also, Roissy:

Why There Is A Gender Gap

In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta.

June 6, 2009

“Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote.” Grover Cleveland, 1905

Men are better informed.

February 13, 2009

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal.

Why don’t women write many good op-eds?

Paul Newman put his finger on it when he said: In our family I make all the big decisions like what the official Newman Family stance is on nuclear disarmament, while my wife makes all the little decisions, like where we’ll live and where’ll we send our kids to school.

Women are simply, on average, more practical than men. They aren’t as interested in big issues where they are unlikely to have much impact. They are more interested in how to improve their own lives and those of the people they care about….

The median woman’s life is simply more important from a Darwinian perspective than the median man’s life because women are the limiting resource in reproduction, so they can’t afford to waste their lives on disinterested interests, like all those guys who submit op-eds to Dahlia Lithwick about, say, the Lebanese situation even though, in practical sense, Lebanon is irrelevant to their lives.

Very true. And it’s another reason that women shouldn’t be permitted to have a say in things like nuclear disarmament and Lebanon. With rare exceptions, they just aren’t qualified to judge these matters.

Link Dump

February 10, 2009

The RL monster has been consuming too much of my time as of late, so I haven’t been posting here as often. However, I do have quite a few links saved up that I want to share with you all:

Further Reading for the Modern Anti-Suffragist
I shall be adding this to my sidebar!

Why The ‘Perfect’ Body Isn’t Always Perfect: How Hormones Interact With Waist-to-hip Ratios In Women
Get a load of how they spin this lack of femininity:

Having an imperfect body may come with some substantial benefits for some women, according to a new article in the December issue of Current Anthropology.
The hormones that make women physically stronger, more competitive and better able to deal with stress also tend to redistribute fat from the hips to the waist, according to Elizabeth Cashdan, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. So in societies and situations where women are under pressure to procure resources, they may be less likely to have the classic hourglass figure.

Liking men in the superior position

“I like superior men,” Carole Lombard says
By Carole Lombard
I could never admire a man unless he were superior to me in most ways, rather domineering in manner, and a much better player than worker.

Math gender gap news

Patients struggle to find women doctors

PATIENTS who wish to consult female doctors are struggling, as the state suffers from a statewide shortage of women GPs.

Fight, Flight . . . or Tend and Befriend?

When Shelley Taylor at UCLA looked at the research on fight or flight, she found that it was primarily based on studying men. In her studies of women, she found a very different response to fear, which she termed “tend and befriend.” It also had biological underpinnings. When women sensed a threat, they emitted oxytocin, sometimes called the bonding hormone. Rather than fight or flee, they would talk, soothe, and try to connect. I saw a similar response to fear when I worked with women rape victims. Many reported that rather than fight off their assailant or try to flee, they were kind to the rapist in hopes that he would change his mind.

It’s a boy! Asian immigrants use medical technology to satisfy age-old desire: a son

A Columbia University study suggests that Chinese, Indian and Korean immigrants have been using medical technology, most likely including abortion, to assure their later children were boys.

Florence King:

Computers are delicate mechanisms whose power resides in mysterious interior places; there is no way of knowing whether or not they will respond; they react with hysteria to some little problem that wouldn’t bother anybody but a computer; and they have achieved the status of “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em.” It’s only a matter of time before they join ships under the mantle of “she,” but the techno-snots will never caress the word as sailors do.

The Uneven Playing Field

Title IX, the federal law enacted in 1972 mandating equal opportunity in sports, has helped to shape a couple of generations of girls who believe they are as capable and as tough as any boy….

This casualty rate was not due to some random spike in South Florida. It is part of a national trend in the wake of Title IX and the explosion of sports participation among girls and young women. From travel teams up through some of the signature programs in women’s college sports, women are suffering injuries that take them off the field for weeks or seasons at a time, or sometimes forever.

Girls and boys diverge in their physical abilities as they enter puberty and move through adolescence. Higher levels of testosterone allow boys to add muscle and, even without much effort on their part, get stronger. In turn, they become less flexible. Girls, as their estrogen levels increase, tend to add fat rather than muscle. They must train rigorously to get significantly stronger. The influence of estrogen makes girls’ ligaments lax, and they outperform boys in tests of overall body flexibility — a performance advantage in many sports, but also an injury risk when not accompanied by sufficient muscle to keep joints in stable, safe positions. Girls tend to run differently than boys — in a less-flexed, more-upright posture — which may put them at greater risk when changing directions and landing from jumps. Because of their wider hips, they are more likely to be knock-kneed — yet another suspected risk factor.

Are Women Human and Other Feminist Straw-Men

How do you feel about the fact that feminists passed a law that makes physical incapacity NOT to be an excuse for non-payment of child support? In one case in 1991, a US soldier who spent 5.5 months as an Iraqi POW was arrested on the very FIRST DAY back from Iraq. In another case, a man who was in a coma was arrested after waking up for not paying to his ex-wife while he was in a coma. In several cases, men who were imprisoned and proved with DNA evidence that they were wrongfully convicted were never let out of prison because they didn’t pay to their ex-wives while in prison (child support remains the same if you lose your job because you are arrested).

Educational gender parity and the paralyzation of the womb
Gender parity, female educational attainment, and fecundity in the US

Reason women don’t belong in politics #2370293847

This reminds me of how, the day after the inauguration, several of my female classmates were discussing how much they loved Michelle Obama’s dress and how excited they were to have a First Lady whose fashion they can follow closely.

Throwing like a girl(’s brain)

In fact, the empirical gulf between average throwing ability in men and women is huge (just as it is symbolically important), dwarfing virtually any other measurable difference between the sexes, even things like aggression, frequency of masturbation, attitudes towards casual sex, and spatial abilities on paper-and-pencil tests.

For the record, I throw like a girl.

Finally, this cheered me up yesterday:
Roissy in DC

If there were any remaining doubts that giving women the right to vote has been an unmitigated disaster for America, this article should dispel them. Most women, especially single SWPLers and undersexed hausfraus bitter about being married to quisling betas, are simply unserious creatures who will let their emotions guide them to vote away the political and social arrangements that created the modern yenta-fied culture that affords them the luxury of voting like vapid teenage girls.

Mark Twain was a prophet.

October 1, 2008

In an essay about women’s suffrage, he envisioned the campaign slogans:

“Vote for Judy McGinniss, the incorruptible! Nine children – one at the breast!”

Victoria Woodhull

August 7, 2008

Artful Dodger has just linked me to another article about Victoria Woodhull. It relates how, like most feminists (look at the life histories of Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, etc), she got all her ideas from the men she slept with. Also like them, her business enterprises were invariably financed by men. Yep.

Also, “Her participation in the [National Woman Suffrage Association] convention allowed critics to conclude that women’s suffrage would lead to pernicious free love and the breakdown of the family.” The blogger does not appear to have noticed that they were absolutely right. Well, maybe he thinks it’s a good thing.

Another Florence King Review

August 6, 2008

This one is of Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull by Barbara Goldsmith.

The title alone is enlightening, especially to those with any knowledge of Edwardian utopianism. The notion of women’s equality was born of the same era as seances, eugenics, Marxism, communes, theosophy, and the Cottingley fairies. And was adhered to by the same people. Among the things I learned from this review is that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were both spiritualists. Stanton’s “Declaration of Women’s Rights” was written on a table the Fox sisters had used for a seance.

By the way, I’ve linked to several Wikipedia articles for this post, but I have to say that it’s shaken what faith I had in La Wik considerably. They’re eager to paint Woodhull and Beecher in as positive a light as possible, because they supported currently popular causes such as feminism and abolition. (They were right on the latter, at least, I suppose on the “stopped clock” principle.) So they gloss over the promiscuity, bigamy, horse-killing, seances and megalomania.

Victoria Woodhull was an alleged psychic who befriended the two suffragette leaders and was introduced by them to the notorious preacher Henry Ward Beecher. Among other things, he preached that Christianity should change with the times to champion women’s rights. Not for him the stern God the Father of traditional Christianity; he offered a pabulumized, warm fuzzy version of Christianity and even referred to God as “Mother”. He also contended that it is good to sin because that gives God plenty of chances to be gracious and forgive you.

Beecher also supported temperance (Prohibition) and once raced a pair of thoroughbreds to death.

(In his defense, he did fiercely oppose slavery and even raised funds to buy slaves and then free them.)

Women loved him, naturally. He was dramatic, and women are suckers for charisma. An unimpressed male known as Mark Twain described his preaching style: “sawing his arms in the air, howling sarcasms this way and that, discharging rockets of poetry and exploding mines of eloquence, halting now and then to stamp his foot three times in succession to emphasize a point.” Being told that they were equal to their betters (men) and that utopia was attainable in such rabble-rousing fashion completely scattered the wits of his female parishoners. Beecher was able to use his congregation as his personal harem.

This was rather problematic, because one point on which Beecher was not quite so advanced was free love, which he denounced from the pulpit while enthusiastically practicing it in his private office.

Victoria Woodhull had gone from a little nutty to megalomaniacal. As she openly advocated both women’s suffrage and free love, she announced that the spirits with whom she communed had told her that she was destined to rule the world. She started publishing a weekly paper, which “became notorious for publishing controversial opinions on taboo topics (especially with regard to sex education and free love). The paper advocated, among other things, women’s suffrage, short skirts, spiritualism, free love, vegetarianism, and licensed prostitution. It’s commonly stated that the paper also advocated birth control, but some historians disagree. The paper is now known primarily for printing the first English version of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in its December 30, 1871 edition.” (Source.) In this paper, Woodhull hinted at Beecher’s loose morals, hoping to make him change his public stance on free love.

Woodhull was bigamously married to two men and also had at least one lover. This “free love” arrangement inevitably led to a domestic brawl which got them all arrested. In the aftermath of the scandal, she revealed all about Beecher’s serial adultery in her paper. Like today’s feminists, she had no problem with his infidelity or his compulsive need to seduce every woman he could – he couldn’t even be faithful to one mistress. “Every great man of Mr. Beecher’s type has had in the past and will ever have, the need for and the right to the loving manifestations of many women,” she wrote.

Feminism does tend to restore society to the precivilized harem arrangement, but rarely do feminists advocate this so openly!

July 17, 2008

Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise

Academics have for some time pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. That was the first war in which government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels. Then in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.

For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.