PDA

View Full Version : Should Women Have the Right to Vote?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Hoarsewhisper
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 07:17 AM
...................;)

The right to vote was the during the latest centennium established mostly all over the world.

Some consider it however the worst failure done the latest millenium. Also these have the right to express themselves and their opinions. Or maybe not...?

Of course it is tabu to question if that was right, I can imagine the hord of raging hysterics, suffragettes and lesbians trying to knock down the gates.

I also count on that some will rage on my right to write and publish such ideas, but as I can see, it is safely within the rules.

Of course we will get confirmed what we expect, but it should be interesting to see what people really means.

Of course females are welcome to vote, on this poll! :)

Zyklop
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 07:38 AM
No, and neither should most men. I´m not a democrat.

brian
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 08:26 AM
If they vote or not, if we are stuck with one-size-fits-all democracies, whoever we vote for (like here on the federal level), our vote has no weight at all.

Voting has relevance only in smaller communities. I wouldn't mind to have women in on the process.

Blutwölfin
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 08:54 AM
Idiots, brainless people, uneducated people shouldn't be allowed to vote; female as well as male idiots.

Sifsvina
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 09:37 AM
I shock people who know me with this: I believe that in an ideal situation (which is not true of the world now or of many people) married women should not vote and a man with a family should have more of a vote than singles. A woman should be able to trust her husband to vote for the good of the family (he would consult her and take her input into consideration). Unless she is acting head of family and then the woman should vote. On the other hand I don't think that all women should be barred from political/leadership rolls in the rare case she is suited to it. I don't think women should be encouraged to do so and to moan until there exactly as many , or more, women in office (or whatever other roll) as men is disgusting and unnatural.
I second BW's opinion, but unfortunately even most educated people are too stupid to see the ultimate impact of what they vote in. Requiring land ownership might help but there are problems with that now.
As if voting really counts any longer out of a small local area. :rolleyes:

Hoarsewhisper
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 09:51 AM
A woman should be able to trust her husband to vote for the good of the family (he would consult her and take her input into consideration).

Yes, a family mans vote should count heavier than a singles.
Such feels another kind of resonsibilty for the society, which I think is more trustworthy, as they have to consider the future of the coming generations to another degree than childless singles.


But unfortunately even most educated people are too stupid to see the ultimate impact of what they vote in. Requiring land ownership might help but there are problems with that now.
As if voting really counts any longer out of a small local area. :rolleyes:

It would not help much to refuse the idiots to vote.
Among Norwegian voters, 70% of those with academic educations votes red. The "radical" red party SV, consists mainly of academicals. The party is also considered to have the electors with the highest score on IQ tests...

So sorry bw, I understand your outburst of rage, but this has nothing to do with IQ or education.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 10:05 AM
No, and neither should most men. I´m not a democrat.
Agreed.

Plus, if men were to re-assume their traditional male roles as food hunters and gatherers, warriors, defenders of family and tribe, then, I, as a woman, would gladly give up any "political" rights and stick to the housework and the upbringing of children. You think I like working 10 to 8 and paying taxes or bugging my little head with everything that is wrong in the world? :)

Yet, so far as the majority of modern, spoiled, passive, dependent, metrosexual men do nothing of that sort, and are unable to support themselves let alone support their family, or stay at their parents house until their mid-30s, then I will keep doing what I have to do to survive in this world, including my involvement in politics ;)

juno
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 10:10 AM
yes..

and for the male, the head of the family part , i dont think that's the whole truth..
a womans part in a family is really big.
she has to cook, clean, take care of the kids etc,etc..
i think a man will pick a woman of who he knows that she can handle it..
and if she can handle bringing up her children and teaching them wrong from right , why shouldn't she has the right to vote for a better way for her children?

Sifsvina
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 10:36 AM
and for the male the head off the family part , i dont think thats the hole truth..
a womans part in a family is really big.
she has to cook, clean, take care of the kids etc,etc..
i think a man will pic a woman of who he knows that she can handle it..
and if she can handle bringing up her children and teaching them wrong from right , why should'nt she has the wright to vote for a better why for her children?

Is your typo "head off" an insight into your views;) I in no way said a woman's role in the family was not big and extremely important. A mayor does not make decisions for a town without getting the opinion of it's inhabitants and if he makes decisions against what they think he will not be mayor long if they don't turn out to be very wise decisions. And a mayor is nothing without a town to be "head" of. It is a man's role to be more aware of the larger political story and judge what is better for his family (or take his wife's advice if she happens to be the one with the head for politics;-) A woman is in charge of the household and the man is in charge of it's interface with the larger world. They stand back to back united with the woman facing in and the man facing out. I'm talking ideal generalizations, not about all the ways that any situation can go wrong as those who like to reject all traditional rolls like to harp on.

I don't think anyone with that many typo's should have the right to vote:D

juno
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 11:15 AM
I don't think anyone with that many typo's should have the right to vote:D

are'nt you happy you dont life in holland.;)
but my great english spelling skills have nothing to do with my opinion..:P

Praetorianer
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Idiots, brainless people, uneducated people shouldn't be allowed to vote; female as well as male idiots.

I would have said that,too.I want to add that outlanders mustn´t vote,too.

Siegfried
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Among Norwegian voters, 70% of those with academic educations votes red. The "radical" red party SV, consists mainly of academicals. The party is also considered to have the electors with the highest score on IQ tests...

So sorry bw, I understand your outburst of rage, but this has nothing to do with IQ or education.

Jacques Ellul has written a book titled Propaganda where he makes the point that those who have gone through higher education have been exposed to more propaganda from the establishment. They tend to have undergone a higher degree of socialisation and internalisation of the elite's worldview.

Sigurd
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Maybe we should ban all inlanders from voting and transfer the sole voting right onto Pakistanis? After all we should all rejoice in the rainbow colours, and the racist white men and women refuse to vote for a black lesbian president...I vote yes for a referral to the European Court of Human Rights... :D

OK, be all serious.
In a proper democratic society married women should not vote. Nor should married men. when they are unmarried (married meaning having a family, i.e. kids; not that weird piece of paper telling you to be "faithful till death death you part") they should have their single votes, but when they are in a family, it is important that a family votes in unison.
I am also for lifting the each-vote-counts-for-one-vote thing. The voice of families should count for at least 3 times as much as the vote of some other people!

anaktas
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 01:15 PM
I agree with Zyklop and Blood Axis.

I believe that the right to vote should be given only to people who meet some prerequistes. Or, better, to none.

Weg
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 02:03 PM
What for anyway? :D ;)

Siegfried
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 03:11 PM
What for anyway? :D ;)

I believe this is about American Idol (http://www.idolonfox.com/) ;)

brian
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006, 04:14 PM
It would not help much to refuse the idiots to vote.
Among Norwegian voters, 70% of those with academic educations votes red. The "radical" red party SV, consists mainly of academicals. The party is also considered to have the electors with the highest score on IQ tests...


Being able to reduce a complex problem into an easily digestible solution doesn't suggest that they are philosophically sound. :) They mastered how to extract the best mediocrity out of people. :(



So sorry bw, I understand your outburst of rage, but this has nothing to do with IQ or education.


This gives more of a reason to appropriate democracy more to smaller communities. It seems completely unreasonable that a radical, self-absorbed leftist has, as part of his group, say on how people in rural areas, for example, should run their lives. The thing is, I bet, is that they love that feeling of superiority; this should make it viable to transform a retrograde "government of the people" so they can't perpetuate their cosmopolitan beliefs, amongst other traits that they posess.

PsycholgclMishap
Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 04:30 PM
No one should be allowed to vote for anything unless they have a clear and informed perception of the consequences of that vote.

freya3
Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 06:01 PM
In a proper democratic society married women should not vote. Nor should married men. when they are unmarried (married meaning having a family, i.e. kids; not that weird piece of paper telling you to be "faithful till death death you part") they should have their single votes, but when they are in a family, it is important that a family votes in unison.
I am also for lifting the each-vote-counts-for-one-vote thing. The voice of families should count for at least 3 times as much as the vote of some other people!

I agree w/Sig that when married and a family has evolved, a woman and man's vote should become one. That is how it's supposed to work in a marriage anyway...work as a team to create the greater good. And it should count more.

I do believe too that there should be criteria met before anyone can vote, not just women. There are too many idiots running around that have all these "rights" and are voting messing the system up even worse :doh

newenstad
Friday, March 17th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Only wise or/and well educated men and women should be allowed to vote


(but my inner chauvinist votes for "Androcracy")

anaktas
Friday, March 17th, 2006, 09:12 PM
(but my inner chauvinist votes for "Androcracy")
ANDROCRACY
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8503/dday23gu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ANDROCRACY pt.2
http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/1300/deadhorses6pu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ANDROCRACY pt.3
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/5650/heavyartillery5hb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


All hail

anaktas
Saturday, March 18th, 2006, 01:49 PM
ANDROCRACY pt.4
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1264/10249196ojurkcxoovph8it.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ANDROCRACY pt.5
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3247/g1256ef.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
[WW1 cemetaries]

newenstad
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 12:36 AM
Normally hardcore feminists say that all evil comes from the menfolk and I normally answer also the good things come from the menfolk...its the story of the tongue...

...and yes I was meant seriously...

anaktas
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 10:00 AM
Normally hardcore feminists say that all evil comes from the menfolk and I normally answer also the good things come from the menfolk...its the stroy of the tongue...

...and yes I was meant seriously...
Hey, I am far from being a feminist :thumbsdow. Of course good things come from us men. But the two wars are results of androcracy, right?

Zyklop
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 10:36 AM
Hey, I am far from being a feminist :thumbsdow. Of course good things come from us men. But the two wars are results of androcracy, right?Biggest bullshit I ever read on BuB. :doh

anaktas
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Biggest bullshit I ever read on BuB. :doh
You are a German. You do not count. :D
And instead of commenting my post, why don't you explain your position?

Eisenmann
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 10:59 AM
You are a German. You do not count. :Dpeople get killed daily for a lot less offensive remarks..:D

Sigrid
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Excuse little me, but I am academically qualified to the highest degree. I am not a lefty and never have been one. I was educated by a nationalist government but there were lefties in the academic ranks. I fought with them right to the end, stating, to the near detriment of the PhD that I was a "nationalist".

I naturally think all adults who pay taxes should vote. However, this has caused trouble as the distribution of brains versus emotional hysteria versus selfish useless yobs has made voting a fruitless exercise for all those decent people who would like to make their vote actually count for something. This is why now so many people just don't vote. They are p*ssed off big-time and this is how they are showing it. They are threatening to bring the entire concept of government and democracy to its knees by refusing to be democratic where it counts most.

These things have nothing to do with how small some men think women's brains are. Let me assure you we are smarter than you want us to be. The problem is that feminism has resulted in something unpleasant in its takeover bid of the masculine domain and chauvinism caused feminism in the first place.

A qualifying vote is one way out but at the moment this would mean lefty domination and already they dominate everything. What is needed before all the ideological schemes get off the ground is a change in the way people fight their oppression. Many once supercilious lefties are panicking quietly at the sheer lack of truth being exhibited every day in their original idea that multiculturalism was going to be the Divine Commune of all time. So where there is fear there is hope and where there is uncertainty there is a breeding ground for new ideas.

Apart from the voting thing I try to be very decisive in what products I buy, what adverts I relate to and what TV and films I watch, what books I read, etc. It helps to make certain people rise in the cultural stock market and cause others to go bust. For example I ignore Harry Potter because the woman who wrote it is an arch lefty promoted by Spielberg and Spielberg has gone beyond his role as film producer and shoved big gobs of cash in the way of the Jewish woman who sued David Irving. I think this interference in political matters (as well as all the cash this kind of wealthy person can place in political pockets) is not in the public interest and certainly not in the interests of justice. Think of the millions lefty Bernie Ecclestone of Formula One has put into the British Labour Party. So ta-ta to Spielberg and Harry P and Company. They can go and do nasty things to themselves. On the other hand I bought all the Tolkien books, all the Tolkien DVDs and consume everything that pertains to white people and their culture.

This brings us to the adverts subject. Many ads now pop in a negro or two and when they do he is always sporting a blond trophy on his arm, or in his arms. If they are all black in an ad, fine. I have no problem with blacks married to blacks with black children doing their black thing. And this is so of all folk groups. It isn't racism, it is resistance to indoctrination that is the motivation for this attitude. So all we have to do is so much as get a hint of this "Ain't race-mixing grand" concept in our household and a note is made of the product and it is never bought or used. Plus we switch the sound off the ads and talk about something else when they are on. When a film starts the same thing off it goes. We get out a video or DVD and watch that instead and the stock of DVDs are all of the things we want to watch. Any multiculti nonsense and the DVD will go into the dustbin.

It's just our way of saying "No thanks".

They keep telling us how we are all going to become extinct in the near future and then expect us to help the process by making them rich off their deeply dubious adverts, films and books. They can get knotted as far as I am concerned. I'd rather go without some things, or buy other brands. If I am expected to participate in the demise of my race or any of the European nations the answer is "No thanks".


:thumbsdow :ban :thrclosed :gangup :grimreape :angry:

And then, finally ... :yawn:

The result, economically, if people would only discipline themselves to participate, could be devastating.

anaktas
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 12:24 PM
']people get killed daily for a lot less offensive remarks..:D
I kill daily for a lot less offensive remarks :D :D

Zyklop
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 01:49 PM
You are a German. You do not count. :D
And instead of commenting my post, why don't you explain your position? I hope you understand that the stupidity of your post as well as my lack of interest to discuss with male feminists prevents me from "explaining my position".

anaktas
Sunday, March 19th, 2006, 03:13 PM
I hope you understand that the stupidity of your post as well as my lack of interest to discuss with male feminists prevents me from "explaining my position".
I AM NOT A FEMINIST. Can you understand that? I hope so. Because your post shows lack of critical thought. :doh :screwy

I am a thinking person, not a deaf stone with some carved ideas on it.

newenstad
Monday, March 20th, 2006, 05:57 PM
I AM NOT A FEMINIST. Because your post shows lack of critical thought. :doh :screwy


Critical thoughts?


But the two wars are results of androcracy, right?


You are a German. You do not count.


I kill daily for a lot less offensive remarks

Sigurd
Monday, March 20th, 2006, 06:13 PM
"One, two, three, four, I declare a Flame War." :rolleyes:

Guys, calm your minds down and fight your battles over nationalities elsewhere. This topic in its original formulation has naught to do with the capability of different peoples to form a rational thought, and the matter of rational thought is in fact a question which you might be better off asking an evolutionary psychologist about.

Now this has nothing to do with my German heritage, but I would like to call for *law and order*. Thanks.

Alkman
Tuesday, March 21st, 2006, 10:13 AM
There are women today that are pilots in fighters and can exterminate a whole army of "strong and fearless soldiers" that dream to find a honourable death in a battlefield by just pushing a button. Does anyone really think that there's even a bit of realism by debating about the right of women to vote?

Sigrid
Tuesday, March 21st, 2006, 10:51 AM
I agree, besides which women have been capable of destroying things since men first decided to start doing it. Anyone whose life was ever invaded at a young age by a determined step-mother and her brood of rival offspring will know this from grass roots level. It's a battlefield from the moment anyone emerges from the womb. Whether we survive or get crushed in this world depends not on our gender but on our tenacity to overcome opposition and keep our integrity, no matter what happens to us along the way. To stand with the wind in our hair on the plain of Vigrid and know that no matter what, we fought our corner and survived. And once is never enough for the cosmic jester. We are going to go on being tested till we die. Some of us just give in. Others stay on through the bad times and wait for that wind that we know can carry us to Valhalla if we just keep believing in ourselves even when no one else does, or will.

And we don't need to lose any of our good humour or personality because we do this. In fact keeping these is a victory in itself.

:winner:

leonidas
Saturday, March 25th, 2006, 07:20 PM
I'm not democrat or a feminist but in this ''democratic'' women must have the right to vote!Of course in a NS regime no one has the ''right'' to vote!:D

Weg
Sunday, March 26th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Did you know that in France, in the early 20th century, Christians wanted to give women the right to vote and that the lefty anti-clerical movement opposed? :D

I'm not too much into Scandinavian history, so could someone tell me if they were women in the Thing for instance? As most of you are Germanics, it could shed a light on this topic.

Sigrid
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 06:56 AM
Weg, the thing is people should stop worrying so much about what was or what might have been and worry more about what is and what is to be. I believe in constant evolution that is not disrespectful of the past but builds on it and learns from it. We can't build or evolve if we have one eye on what used to be because we want to return to it in a revivalist sense. Yesterday is gone, to quote Fleetwood Mac, and we must think about "what tomorrow will bring." Some things are a good idea and should be retained and evolved. Others were fine at the time perhaps but today are unworkable. Put them in the museum of the past and look at them as history, a story of progress. Or join Islam, live in the past and behead anyone who disagrees with you. :D

ladybright
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 02:39 PM
I believe in universal suffrage for adults. I am uncomfortable with felons having voting rights. I believe that women should have equal opportunities in politics(and elsewhere). I do not expect to ever see 'equal representation' and I do not believe quotas are a good idea. Women and men tend to have different strengths. I think we should let the best (of either gender) be the best. As it now stands the US is in deep trouble. That is not caused by womens suffrage.

Hermelin
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Voting rights should be restricted to intelligent individuals, regardless of gender. Gender should not be the issue, intelligence should be.

The misogyny here is worrying.

Deary
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 09:11 PM
Voting rights should be restricted to intelligent individuals, regardless of gender. Gender should not be the issue, intelligence should be.

The misogyny here is worrying.

I am against women's suffrage and I most certainly do not hate women. I am sure many of the men who do not believe in women's suffrage and equal opportunity will tell you the same. Equating sexism with misogyny is rather low and very typical of feminists.

And, like it or not, gender is an issue. To deny it as one is just as foolish as denying race as an issue. It is a fact that men and women have different voting trends with the majority of women voting alongside minorities, gays, immigrants, etc. for the least conservative policies. Restricting the vote to (white) males would essentially be restricting the vote to the most conservative and intelligent individuals of the population and the most capable of grasping the knowledge that is vital to politics. As a paleoconservative, I'd imagine you'd find that favorable and certainly less risky than relying on your fellow women, who are, unfortunately, not like you, me, Gertrud Scholtz, and Margaret Thatcher.

Hermelin
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Actually, I am not talking just about this thread.


Equating sexism with misogyny is rather low and very typical of feminists.

I strongly disagree with you on this. There might be gender voting trends; however I do not think this would be a good enough reason to exclude ALL women from voting :thumbdown. Politics needs input from both intelligent men and women.

Let's assume for a minute that individuals aged less than 50 years old are found to vote "alongside minorities, gays, immigrants, etc. for the least conservative policies." Would you suggest restricting the vote to individuals of at least 50 years of age?

Loki
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 09:51 PM
I am against women's suffrage and I most certainly do not hate women.

Being a woman yourself, you actually feel you are ill-equipped to express your views at the ballot? Astonishing. Voting for something is merely expressing your views. Your views are heard here on Skadi, do you feel they are inferior to those of men?

:bigeek

Anfang
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 10:10 PM
I am against women's suffrage and I most certainly do not hate women. I am sure many of the men who do not believe in women's suffrage and equal opportunity will tell you the same. Equating sexism with misogyny is rather low and very typical of feminists. I do not believe in any sufferage. Men or Women.
There are men of a higher order and women of higher order in my view.
If an individual wants to polish the boots of all the individuals of the male gender, I guess they have decided where they rank in that order.


It is a fact that men and women have different voting trends with the majority of women voting alongside minorities, gays, immigrants, etc. for the least conservative policies.Not in Denmark.



Restricting the vote to (white) males would essentially be restricting the vote to the most conservative and intelligent individuals of the population and the most capable of grasping the knowledge that is vital to politics. As a paleoconservative, I'd imagine you'd find that favorable and certainly less risky than relying on your fellow women, who are, unfortunately, not like you, me, Gertrud Scholtz, and Margaret Thatcher.
More detail here please. How do you consider the four personalities you gave to be similar?

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I don't think anyone is saying women should not be allowed to vote because of lower intelligence levels.

The problems are:

Women have less interest in national news and politics. Both based on both my personal anecdotal observations and the statistics in my earlier post:

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=854140&postcount=36

This means, regardless of intellectual capability, women tend to have a lower knowledge base, particularly as regards to facts and positions on issues which don't make it into sound bites and headlines of major media organizations.

Also, a greater tendency to make judgments on superficial or emotional means, and evaluate things based on short term benefit as opposed to long term effect. Articles from womens' magazines admit as much, though they don't quite use that terminology:

http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2002/steinem.asp

In the Harris-Setlow poll, 71 percent of the women questioned believed that "women are more sensitive to the problems of the poor and underprivileged than men are." A majority of women believed that "women attach greater value to human life" and "have more artistic ability and appreciation of the arts than men do." A majority of both men and women were convinced that a woman president would be less likely to take the country into war.

Women also believed that females were more pacifist than males; cared more about protecting consumer interests; found war less justifiable under any circumstance; and were generally less hardened to the suffering of other people. These cultural differences, the women respondents said, would be evident in decisions made by a woman in office.

Summing up both the 1971 and 1972 polls, Louis Harris agreed. "Women are voting differently from men," he said. "They are more inclined now to vote and to become active not only for their own self-interest, but for the interest of society, the world, and most of all, out of compassion for humanity."

All the post-election polls concluded that women voted less for Nixon or Wallace than men did, but women voters were still not turning out in the same proportion as men. If they had, Humphrey would have won in 1968.

[this has now been reversed, women now vote in higher proportion than men]



Being a woman yourself, you actually feel you are ill-equipped to express your views at the ballot? Astonishing. Voting for something is merely expressing your views. Your views are heard here on Skadi, do you feel they are inferior to those of men?

:bigeek

There's a number of groups I belong to who I think probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, including 'renters', 'people of low income', and perhaps less seriously 'residents of Massachusetts'.

Loki
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 11:10 PM
There's a number of groups I belong to who I think probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, including 'renters', 'people of low income', and perhaps less seriously 'residents of Massachusetts'.

In other words only well-off people should vote. I have a problem with that. Many rich kids have no idea what goes on in the real world. Often the working class, poor and hard-working people have a more realistic concept of what needs to happen at governmental level. Only rich people to get the vote? No way!!

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 11:43 PM
In other words only well-off people should vote. I have a problem with that. Many rich kids have no idea what goes on in the real world. Often the working class, poor and hard-working people have a more realistic concept of what needs to happen at governmental level. Only rich people to get the vote? No way!!

I would have a requirement that you must pay more taxes in to the government than the amount of benefits you receive from the government in order to vote. If you don't have this type of limit, then you get a situation like today where people elect politicians for the sole purpose of securing them benefits, and it leads towards a situation where you can have 51% vote in a government which promises to take resources away from the other 49%.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Voting rights should be restricted to intelligent individuals, regardless of gender. Gender should not be the issue, intelligence should be.

The misogyny here is worrying.How is being opposed to female suffrage misogyny? Women in the West didn't have it so bad before they got the vote. In the bad old days when White men were in charge they didn't have to worry about being sexually assualted by Negroes or Islamic immigrants. The contemporary world with universal suffrage is a much more misogynist society then the one that existed before women got the vote.

Patrioten
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 01:14 AM
I would have a requirement that you must pay more taxes in to the government than the amount of benefits you receive from the government in order to vote. If you don't have this type of limit, then you get a situation like today where people elect politicians for the sole purpose of securing them benefits, and it leads towards a situation where you can have 51% vote in a government which promises to take resources away from the other 49%.Exactly. And poor people today vote on economical issues (and they are not even concerned about what is good for the economy either, only what is good for their own wallet and maybe also what is good for other poor peoples' wallets). As long as the socialists promise them more benefits they don't care about their social agenda, (they might even buy into it since the socialists are obviously the good guys since they provide hand outs, so why would they be wrong on social issues?) even though social policies have a huge impact on society. They are in a very real sense ignorant, and should not have any influence what so ever in society. Not that the rest of the population is that much better, especially European populations that have a strong tradition of social democratism.

I think the basic tenet of democracy, that the people is capable of deciding these matters using rationality and reason, is false. It is utopianism, and it doesn't correspond with reality.

Loddfafner
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 01:55 AM
An electorate that is broad enough to include women is, I believe, even more necessary than America's second amendment in keeping the government at least somewhat accountable to the people.

I have to admit I find the whole question of reconsidering women's suffrage as bizarre as, say, reconsidering the merits of indoor plumbing or modern tableware.

InvaderNat
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 02:09 AM
I think women should not have the vote. Without the vote they wouldn't be involved in politics - except perhaps as advocates for particular policies, but certainly not as elected politicians. In practice giving women the vote has resulted in the adoption of pro-Feminist policies, policies that promote a Feminist superiority agenda

Of course women should have the vote!, if you reversed it we would eventually go back to chauvinism which has many of its own problems (although you are right about males being more pro-preservation as Skadi is 70% male to 30% female).

I think we just need to achieve a better balance in today's male-hating world.


I think that giving the vote to individuals of any sort is a bad idea because it accentuates the atomization of society. If you're going to have some sort of democratic system, I would rather see each household get one vote.

That would be a good idea in theory, but unfortunately it would never work as many household votes are often split.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 03:00 AM
Loddfafner

I have to admit I find the whole question of reconsidering women's suffrage as bizarre as, say, reconsidering the merits of indoor plumbing or modern tableware.

How is that!
LOL!
is Women’s Suffrage an aspect of modernness?

Personally I want a Fair Rational Patriarchy, which is overseen by a rational and Objective, Educated male population.

Patriarchy offers the best situation for both men and women in the long run, and women for the most part have had plenty of power regardless of the male leadership of societies.

As far as women having a vote, I think women should have an input into society and the way it is run, but im not sure as to what form that should take in the future.

One thing I am sure of is that feminist should have NO SAY, in government what so ever, and not be allowed to hold office. They are essentially social engineering criminals, and should be treated as such.

But at the same time we should insure that Anit-Feminism does not become anti-female, that would be reverse reactionary and or discriminatory.

Deary
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 03:25 AM
I strongly disagree with you on this. There might be gender voting trends; however I do not think this would be a good enough reason to exclude ALL women from voting :thumbdown. Politics needs input from both intelligent men and women.
Why is it not a good enough reason? The leftists are the ones who are taking away freedoms and property from people who deserve them and giving them to those who don't. It is because of them we are in the situation we are now and it is because of women that their parties have succeeded like they have. It looks like they haven't done anything for the interests of family and preservation. I fail to see why we should keep feeding the flame. Why does society need women's vote?


Let's assume for a minute that individuals aged less than 50 years old are found to vote "alongside minorities, gays, immigrants, etc. for the least conservative policies." Would you suggest restricting the vote to individuals of at least 50 years of age?
Yes. Actually, that is, more or less, already true, with people less than around 30 years being the least conservative; so, there isn't much to assume. After a certain age, people are more steady in their beliefs, have matured more, seen and experienced more, and know the responsibility of having a career, marriage and chilren. My faith much better rests in them to have sound judgement, but replace "individuals" with "men" and things would be on an even better road.


Being a woman yourself, you actually feel you are ill-equipped to express your views at the ballot? Astonishing. Voting for something is merely expressing your views. Your views are heard here on Skadi, do you feel they are inferior to those of men?
No. Just because I am against women's suffrage does not mean I lack confidence in myself. I do, however, lack confidence in the majority of women and know a great deal of them do harm casting their ballot. I feel that women have failed with their right to vote, and like all who clearly show they cannot handle the responsibility of something properly or well, they should not be given that responsibility again. Like I said, exceptions don't make the rules. I'd gladly give up my vote if all other women had to. I'd gladly vote to put an end to women's suffrage.


More detail here please. How do you consider the four personalities you gave to be similar?
Myself, along with other women on Skadi, as well as the few female voters and politicians that have aided our cause are in the minority, and it will probably take many more years and mistakes before they are not. It ain't worth it. Letting men have the vote would be the surest, fastest way to better the future for our children.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Not just men Deary, the Right men. We don’t need any more left wing organized criminals.

Loki
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:31 AM
I feel that women have failed with their right to vote, and like all who clearly show they cannot handle the responsibility of something properly or well, they should not be given that responsibility again.

I don't understand. Men have voted for the same parties that women have. Sure, the female vote is more to the liberal side in elections it seems, but not so much so, that an all-male vote would have changed the world. I very much doubt it. It's not the fault of female suffrage that we are in the current mess.

Adopting your argument above, men should also not be given the responsibility to vote.

Anfang
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:34 AM
How is that!
LOL!
is Women’s Suffrage an aspect of modernness?

Not Wome's Sufferage but germanic Women's becomming. ("Zu werden")


Personally I want a Fair Rational Patriarchy, which is overseen by a rational and Objective, Educated male population.

This seems to work for Orthodox Jews, maybe you are in the wrong camp.



Patriarchy offers the best situation for both men and women in the long run, and women for the most part have had plenty of power regardless of the male leadership of societies.

In English please. That is a rather nebulous statement.




One thing I am sure of is that feminist should have NO SAY, in government what so ever, and not be allowed to hold office. They are essentially social engineering criminals, and should be treated as such.

Here you go again. do I have to link to the tread post that you did not answer before? You make statements about "Feminism" without knowing anything about the different aspects of it. I would be ashamed to make such statements if I were you. to write with authority about something you are not very knowledgeable about, is very questionable.

Here is the post you din not answer=
"------------------------------------------
Quote:

Feminist wanted to do without individuality, and gender is a reflection of an individuals character. Feminist were essential Marxist, using “Women’s Liberation” as a ruse to gain ground on non socialist societies.

Again, not correct, I am sorry but I do not see the point of posting opinions without a knowledge base to work from.

1) Feminists are not against "Individuality", wrong.

2)There are Matriarchist feminists who believe in setting separate communities, Anarchist feminists, Christian feminists, post Modern feminists and Religious feminists who believe in woman centered religions as well as Marxist feminists. The radical feminists are themselves split into several camps, including marxists - "post marxist liberals" Separatist lesbians . Not to mention the weirdo "transgendered males who have chopped their penises of and subscribe to "Queer theory" . These dudes who mutilate themselves and become legally women (although they should be arrested for this crime against humanity), theorize themselves "a new woman". There are also capitalist white feminists, and black power feminists.
--------------------------------------------------------------



But at the same time we should insure that Anit-Feminism does not become anti-female, that would be reverse reactionary and or discriminatory.

I think you are anti woman, and it is unhealthy.

Feminism itself is a word that is used losely. To equate germanic Women's
growth and strength in the World as feaminist is like equating Germanics with "White". There are plenty of "White" Albanians, Russians, and maditerreanians.

Who would I accept as a District Leader in A Gau where I lived in, a 100% Germanic competent Volkisch female or a mischmoshed 1/4 Irish 2/4 german 1/4 who- knows what "American" with the typical American low brow Jewish influenced media aquiered world view ? Guess

If such a "germanic" male was made leader in my town I would leave it.

Ossi
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 07:50 AM
Politicians are individuals, voters are a large class of people. There's probably a few Turks, high school students, and prison inmates in Germany who could run the country quite competently, especially as opposed to the current regime, but I don't imagine you would want to extend voting votes rights to these classes of people.
Don't compare Turks to women, they're foreigners. I wouldn't accept competent people from other countries. German women are my kind, they're not alien to me or Germany, they're neither criminals and I was having adult women in thought. I don't think a teen or inmate could run a country when they have proven they can't run their own lives properly. Adult women can.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 04:45 PM
I don't understand. Men have voted for the same parties that women have. Sure, the female vote is more to the liberal side in elections it seems, but not so much so, that an all-male vote would have changed the world. I very much doubt it. It's not the fault of female suffrage that we are in the current mess.

Adopting your argument above, men should also not be given the responsibility to vote.
Many persons waste their vote by voting for the apparent leader in the polls or by not voting if their candidate doesn't appear to have chance of winning. Having a large block of voters such as women (more left leaning then men) gives the left an electoral edge, discouraging votes for candidates on the right. If nothing else, the higher proportion of women voting for the left cancels out the votes of males voting for the right.

Jäger
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Not Wome's Sufferage but germanic Women's becomming. ("Zu werden")
"Zu werden" is not German, the English "to" before a verb does not exist in German. To make errors when speaking in a non-native language is bound to happen, however the sense of translating something into German on an English speaking forum escapes me, at least make sure it is correct if you want to make a point with it.

CordeliaforLear
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:43 PM
The short response is an astounding NO! Women most definitely should not have the 'right' to vote.

I tell this to my wife all the time, who rolls her eyes at me and votes anyway.

The (slightly) longer response is that really no one should have this ridiculous 'right,' which amounts to nothing other then modern day mass hysteria and tyranny.

In the long run, democracy will be much more harmful then communism and will lead to a complete inversion of all established values of chivalry, as Edmund Burke astutely pointed out regarding the Jacobin revolution.

Modernity is one long testament to this fact.

Nachtengel
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Not just men Deary, the Right men. We don’t need any more left wing organized criminals.
Yes, there are plenty of left wing men who support anti-nationalist policies. Should men have their right to vote taken away, based on this? Let's face it, nowadays the majority of people are idiots, brainwashed and infested with anti-nationalist propaganda. Solely taking away female vote will solve nothing. You have to look at the cause, which is Western democracy.

While men in the right wing scene complain about women's voting, millions of immigrants cast their ballot.

Jäger
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Yes, there are plenty of left wing men who support anti-nationalist policies. Should men have their right to vote taken away, based on this?
Of course.

Nachtengel
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 06:19 PM
Of course.
:D

They should have it taken away though, I don't support democracy in the first place, hence I said one has to look at the cause. Where are the "should the masses have the right to vote" threads? Nowhere, people just focus on women, singling them out. I don't believe it for a minute that if tomorrow all women were prohibited voting and all men would vote instead the situation would improve drastically.

Jäger
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Where are the "should the masses have the right to vote" threads? Nowhere, people just focus on women, singling them out.
Nah, there are threads about democracy in general. E.g. http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6437


I don't believe it for a minute that if tomorrow all women were prohibited voting and all men would vote instead the situation would improve drastically.
This is isolated seen correct, however just being able to make such a decision would imply the destruction of feminism, at least to quite some extent, and this really would mean an improvement.

Sigurd
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 06:56 PM
The best post in the thread is still the one made on page 1 by Zyklop. ;)


No, and neither should most men. I´m not a democrat.

I still hold by my opinion, may the post be as old as it is. ;)



In a proper democratic society married women should not vote. Nor should married men. when they are unmarried (married meaning having a family, i.e. kids; not that weird piece of paper telling you to be "faithful till death death you part") they should have their single votes, but when they are in a family, it is important that a family votes in unison.
I am also for lifting the each-vote-counts-for-one-vote thing. The voice of families should count for at least 3 times as much as the vote of some other people!

I maintain that unmarried men and unmarried women should have the ballot in a democracy. They are members of society and their voice should count, one vote per person.

However, a common household with children means that you set up an environment to bring children up. Sometimes compromises have to be made for that, but it all means that in the end, you have one laid down way how the two of you will deal with issues.

The same should be transferred to the political sphere. Married families should have a united, single voice. There may be discussion at home, but it is an important sign to show that as a family you stand as one.

Therefore, a family should also get a single vote - but it should count more than people's individual votes should. This would encourage an environment where it is understood that families have a larger say in politics. After all, we are creating a world for our children to live in, it should thus be families who have more of a say as to the future, so this single vote by a family could well count 3 votes instead of 1 or 2. It could even encourage politically interested childless couples to have a child so that their voice is heard more. Generally, family-friendly politics and political systems could deal with the declining birth-rate, too. "Two flies at once", as we would say back home. ;)

Since everyone finds that their shirt is closer to them than their skirt - this would likely result in more family-friendly politics. The working classes vote by issues and content of the manifesto rather than by party allegiance for the most part anyway - so there's a way to make that fact work for you. ;)

As to those who will stand up and say that many married couples with children have extremely diverse opinions on public policies - I shall just direct at them: It would just mean all the more that our choice of partner is not made easily and well-made, rather than settling for second best, as it were. :P

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Sure, the female vote is more to the liberal side in elections it seems, but not so much so, that an all-male vote would have changed the world.

It's about a 14-22 point difference generally between liberal and conservative, meaning that having women as slightly the majority of the electorate results in about a 10 point differential in the total electorate towards the left.

In the Presidential elections since 1980:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

1980:
Men: Republicans +19
Women: Republicans +2
Gender difference: 17 pts

1984:
Men: Republicans +25
Women: Republicans +8
Gender difference: 17 pts

1988:
Men: Republicans +16
Women: Republicans +1
Gender difference: 15 pts

1992 (3 way election):
Men: Democrats +3/-18
Women: Democrats +8/-10
Gender difference: 5/8 pts

1996:
Men: Republicans +1
Women: Democrats +16
Gender difference: 17 pts


2000:
Men: Republicans +11
Women: Democrats +11
Gender difference: 22 pts

2004:
Men: Republicans +11
Women: Democrats +3
Gender difference: 14 pts

2008:
Men: Democrats +1
Women: Democrats +13
Gender difference: 14 pts


Data is not available for older elections, but the 1960 election that first brought into power the Kennedy-Johnson regime was decided by a handful of votes out of millions, under this regime were enacted the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 immigration act, without either of these laws we'd still be a 90% white country able to enact laws against the black minority.

Lavender Corrigan
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 12:26 AM
I think women should definitely have the right to vote. Here in the United States more women than men are obtaining their college educations so in general we are the more educated of the sexes. (I don't know the statistics in other countries, I can just speak about my own) In some pre-Christian societies women entered battle, owned land, and held political offices. We have proven to be capable political leaders as well.

The saddest thing is that many people don't even bother educating themselves before casting their vote and they are ignorant to what they are even voting for. I'm all for rational and well informed decisions whether it be politics, religion, or anything else.

Anfang
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 01:11 AM
"Zu werden" is not German, the English "to" before a verb does not exist in German. To make errors when speaking in a non-native language is bound to happen, however the sense of translating something into German on an English speaking forum escapes me, at least make sure it is correct if you want to make a point with it.


So you correct my mistake in German. I will then correct it and add the original point that this " to become" is based on the translation into English of heideggerian philosophy, and since you probably have not read Heidegger, apologies for a second mistake in asuming that you would understand it.
This term refers to the transcendance of the higher into a complete, and
(to me) Germanic interconnectedness . I do not think that Martin Heideggers Germanic or philosophical credentials are in doubt.

I said in another post that there are Women of a higher order and women of a lower order, as there are men of a lower and higher order also.
"Voting" is ridiculous anyway.And to argue if one gender should have a "right to vote" is doubly ridiculous.
Already it is true that the philosophers, the thinkers, the artists and the religious(Who are themselves artists because they create religions) shape the minds of the people of the lower order. If we can develop into a vibrating interacting germanic society then those artists-directors will work with humanity itself towards a "becoming" It shows the small mind of the nazi-want-to be buroucrat that you cannot understand this and instead cling on to a small language mistake rather than endeavouring to reflect on what is being said.

Our past and our future are connected transporeally through the Volk,. All of it. Gender is not an issue to genius.

--------------------------------------------------------------
======================================== ========

Quote:
How is that!

LOL!
is Women’s Suffrage an aspect of modernness?

Not Wome's Sufferage but germanic Women's becomming. ("Zu werden") {This was the big mistake}




Personally I want a Fair Rational Patriarchy, which is overseen by a rational and Objective, Educated male population.

This seems to work for Orthodox Jews, maybe you are in the wrong camp.





Patriarchy offers the best situation for both men and women in the long run, and women for the most part have had plenty of power regardless of the male leadership of societies.

In English please. That is a rather nebulous statement.






One thing I am sure of is that feminist should have NO SAY, in government what so ever, and not be allowed to hold office. They are essentially social engineering criminals, and should be treated as such.

Here you go again. do I have to link to the tread post that you did not answer before? You make statements about "Feminism" without knowing anything about the different aspects of it.
editor note -anfang-or even in fact using feminism when we are talking about something else? I would be ashamed to make such statements if I were you. to write with authority about something you are not very knowledgeable about, is very questionable.

Here is the post you di not answer=
"------------------------------------------
Quote:



Feminist wanted to do without individuality, and gender is a reflection of an individuals character. Feminist were essential Marxist, using “Women’s Liberation” as a ruse to gain ground on non socialist societies.

Again, not correct, I am sorry but I do not see the point of posting opinions without a knowledge base to work from.

1) Feminists are not against "Individuality", wrong.

2)There are Matriarchist feminists who believe in setting separate communities, Anarchist feminists, Christian feminists, post Modern feminists and Religious feminists who believe in woman centered religions as well as Marxist feminists. The radical feminists are themselves split into several camps, including marxists - "post marxist liberals" Separatist lesbians . Not to mention the weirdo "transgendered males who have chopped their penises of and subscribe to "Queer theory" . These dudes who mutilate themselves and become legally women (although they should be arrested for this crime against humanity), theorize themselves "a new woman". There are also capitalist white feminists, and black power feminists.
--------------------------------------------------------------





Feminism itself is a word that is used losely. To equate germanic Women's
growth and strength in the World as feminist is like equating Germanics with "White". There are plenty of "White" Albanians, Russians, and mediterreanians.

Who would I accept as a District Leader in A Gau where I lived in,... a 100% Germanic competent Volkisch female or a mischmoshed 1/4 Irish 2/4 german 1/4 who- knows what "American" with the typical American low brow Jewish influenced media aquiered world view ? Guess

If such a "germanic" male was made leader in my town I would leave it.

======================================== =============

Are we interested in thought or in Schoolmarmism?
Within our people is the desire to become, to kep perfecting, to connect. this is why even now scandinavian design is supreme, Why German autos are the best. The Americans reaching the moon was possible because of the germans and even Neil Armstrong and the first astronauts to reach the moon, were anglo saxon germanics.
We are a people of the stars, both women and men. Those who would sell our sisters short are quite spiritually, pychologically and philosophically
short themselves.

Loki
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Data is not available for older elections, but the 1960 election that first brought into power the Kennedy-Johnson regime was decided by a handful of votes out of millions, under this regime were enacted the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 immigration act, without either of these laws we'd still be a 90% white country able to enact laws against the black minority.

Have we ever thought just why women voted for the Democrats, for instance? Perhaps we need to look at ourselves and our policies. Women were treated badly in the old days, no wonder they wanted a more liberal government. The Republicans were not saints, and still are not. How much good did the Bush years do to the US? Would Republican governments have been any better? Not much. Republicans/Democrats -- both are parroting the Zionist and International Jewish lines.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 02:49 AM
How much good did the Bush years do to the US? Would Republican governments have been any better? Not much. Republicans/Democrats -- both are parroting the Zionist and International Jewish lines.

True, but most people vote in large part by instinct for ideology/party. I don't think they were voting Democrat because they are pissed off about AIPAC

Chlodovech
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Have we ever thought just why women voted for the Democrats, for instance? Perhaps we need to look at ourselves and our policies. Women were treated badly in the old days, no wonder they wanted a more liberal government.

I see. Over here, back in the day, the socialists were against the right to vote for women, because their votes would've gone to the conservative (Catholic) party.

On a side note: Hitler and Mussolini can not be defined as liberal by any means, and they received the overwhelming support of women in their time. Of course, national socialism modernized Germany, also in regards to women, but it's still remarkable.

EQ Fighter
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 04:03 AM
Todesengel

Yes, there are plenty of left wing men who support anti-nationalist policies. Should men have their right to vote taken away, based on this?
I the case of our current president, and other Chicago syndicate, mafia sorts of criminals.

YES!

Todesengel

While men in the right wing scene complain about women's voting, millions of immigrants cast their ballot.

I have no problem with white females voting in elections in the current era. Only problem is there are not enough of them to make a deference and the illegal aliens have the majority at this point in time.

Realistically at this point I don’t think it really matters who votes, because from the Germanic's side in the US they have finally become outnumbered. The best thing Germanics can do is have lots of kids and attempt to form communities that will not be wiped out. But I don’t see that happening ether.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, December 15th, 2008, 09:24 PM
On a side note: Hitler and Mussolini can not be defined as liberal by any means, and they received the overwhelming support of women in their time. Of course, national socialism modernized Germany, also in regards to women, but it's still remarkable.

Did women disproportionately vote for them as opposed to men? Also, for their time, they were rather liberal, particuarly on economic issues, prior to WWII Mussolini in particular was admired by liberals in other countries.

Chlodovech
Tuesday, December 16th, 2008, 07:10 AM
Did women disproportionately vote for them as opposed to men?

In july 1932, the NSDAP won the votes of 13.7 million German electors (among them 6.5 million women, although some sources suggest a higher number, claiming that even more than half of the NSDAP voters were female), some 37.3 per cent of all votes cast, making it the largest party in the Reich. Keep in mind that there were more German women than men at the time.

A decent, in depth study dealing with the base of support for fascism and nazism is Michael Mann's book 'Fascists', 'Cambridge university press'.

You might wanna have a look at this (http://books.google.be/books?id=B2RiYX6aC68C&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=percentage+women+voters+nsdap&source=bl&ots=C83licGIpf&sig=hEY9NFFYud_ctqE9uNJ-DhaSWCM&hl=nl&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result) too.


Also, for their time, they were rather liberal, particuarly on economic issues, prior to WWII Mussolini in particular was admired by liberals in other countries.

Yes, but all of this took place before the breakthrough of cultural marxism. Liberalism - in Europe at least - meant in those days first and foremost 'capitalism' (and classical, core values as citizenship, the right to vote, 'free speech'...), they weren't exactly advocating mass migration, neither did they proclaim an ultra progressive ethical agenda. Both Hitler and Mussolini received praise from these old school liberals because they rebuild and modernized their countries. Germany became a bulwark against a communist take over of the continent, something the English 'liberal' politicians were happy with. That was, of course, before the 're-occupation' of the Rhineland in 1936.

Inese
Tuesday, December 16th, 2008, 02:08 PM
We should have the right to vote of course. We are the backbone of a nation because we are the ones who bear the children and support the men, who nutrite the family.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 16th, 2008, 06:34 PM
In july 1932, the NSDAP won the votes of 13.7 million German electors (among them 6.5 million women, although some sources suggest a higher number, claiming that even more than half of the NSDAP voters were female), some 37.3 per cent of all votes cast, making it the largest party in the Reich. Keep in mind that there were more German women than men at the time.

That's still less than half of their votes that came from women at a time when they made up well more than half of the electorate, meaning that they did not perform as well amongst women as amongst men.

Chlodovech
Tuesday, December 16th, 2008, 07:19 PM
That's still less than half of their votes that came from women at a time when they made up well more than half of the electorate, meaning that they did not perform as well amongst women as amongst men.

I say that's an excellent result, the NSDAP was more attractive to women than most of the modern day nationalist parties (in Flanders only two or three out of every ten nationalist votes come from women) - and that in a time when women didn't vote as often as men. Also, the other parties didn't do better a job than the NSDAP luring women to the ballot boxes - and it's the combined vote of the conservative nationalists and the national socialists which made Hitler eventually chancellor.

The next isn't NS friendly, but it still has to admit:

• Some historians have said that women voted the Nazis in. In fact this is very difficult to establish, because we have very little information about how women voted in the crucial period (1929-33). Voting was secret. However, in a few towns women’s and men’s votes were counted separately, and the answer seems to have been that women did tend to vote right-wing more than left-wing. Many women supported parties like the Centre or the Nationalists. It may be because these parties had similar approaches to law and order, the family or religion. The Nazi Party was not very different from them. At first more men than women voted Nazi, but by March 1933 about an equal number of men and women voted for them. ‘Existing studies of women in this period shed little light on why this should be so.’ But in any case the story that women particularly voted for Hitler is a myth.

Source (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:g3tAv0OPkRIJ:atschool.edu web.co.uk/redschl/historydocs/Nazi%2520Germany%2520A%2520Level/Women%2520notes.doc+more+women+than+men+ voted+for+hitler&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=be&client=firefox-a)

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 16th, 2008, 09:33 PM
(in Flanders only two or three out of every ten nationalist votes come from women)

That alone ought to prove the point.


I say that's an excellent result, the NSDAP was more attractive to women than most of the modern day nationalist parties...

The next isn't NS friendly, but it still has to admit:

• Some historians have said that women voted the Nazis in. In fact this is very difficult to establish, because we have very little information about how women voted in the crucial period (1929-33). Voting was secret. However, in a few towns women’s and men’s votes were counted separately, and the answer seems to have been that women did tend to vote right-wing more than left-wing. Many women supported parties like the Centre or the Nationalists. It may be because these parties had similar approaches to law and order, the family or religion. The Nazi Party was not very different from them. At first more men than women voted Nazi, but by March 1933 about an equal number of men and women voted for them. ‘Existing studies of women in this period shed little light on why this should be so.’ But in any case the story that women particularly voted for Hitler is a myth.

Source (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:g3tAv0OPkRIJ:atschool.edu web.co.uk/redschl/historydocs/Nazi%2520Germany%2520A%2520Level/Women%2520notes.doc+more+women+than+men+ voted+for+hitler&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=be&client=firefox-a)

At best, that means the womens' vote was a neutral factor for the NSDAP by March 1933, whereas it was a factor against them previously.

Deary
Sunday, December 28th, 2008, 11:13 PM
We should have the right to vote of course. We are the backbone of a nation because we are the ones who bear the children and support the men, who nutrite the family.

Do you think that if only men were permitted to vote they would not bear in mind the children and the family? If you would not trust them alone, do men really have your support at all?

Laedifox
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Idiots, brainless people, uneducated people shouldn't be allowed to vote; female as well as male idiots.

Which means that most of the American population shouldn't be allowed to vote? ;)

*ducks objects being thrown in her direction*

Seriously, I think that if we want to have a true democracy, everyone of a certain age must be able to vote. The problem lies in how the votes are counted and whether there is proportional representation. Oh, and whether or not you actually vote; if you don't, you don't have the right to complain about the results. :)

Maelstrom
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 04:13 AM
Seriously, I think that if we want to have a true democracy, everyone of a certain age must be able to vote. The problem lies in how the votes are counted and whether there is proportional representation. Oh, and whether or not you actually vote; if you don't, you don't have the right to complain about the results. :)

What, in your opinion, constitutes this true democracy?

rainman
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 02:17 PM
Exactly. People should have to have a minimal education and prove certain competency to vote. Perhaps women would have half a vote or something (if they prove competency as well) because men typically serve as head of household and leaders. But this wouldn't be necessary.

Dagna
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 02:24 PM
What, in your opinion, constitutes this true democracy?
A true democracy is that where all citizens are given equal opportunities to affirm their skill.


Exactly. People should have to have a minimal education and prove certain competency to vote. Perhaps women would have half a vote or something (if they prove competency as well) because men typically serve as head of household and leaders. But this wouldn't be necessary.
If women prove that certain competency, then they would have the right to a full vote, just like men who do, even if those women make up a small percentage. There is no rational reason why women should not vote. The only contras I have seen so far are hasty generalizations based on gender, misogyny and bias. There are women who can understand politics and vote responsibly. There are men who cannot. It is also true viceversa. Incompetent women should not vote. Neither should incompetent men. Both competent men and competent women should vote. I believe some universal differentiation should be made, to prove that competency.

Jäger
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Both competent men and competent women should vote. I believe some universal differentiation should be made, to prove that competency.
This demanded competency would be the ability to swing your sword (as it was historically), and even if there are some women who could compete with some men, the many that would get slain in the course of proving so are too much of a loss to justify the few emerging women worthy of a vote.
Better not allow it to them in the first place, women are biologically of too much value, than that they should be allowed to risk their lives while proving their worth like men do.

rainman
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 05:46 PM
A true democracy is that where all citizens are given equal opportunities to affirm their skill.


If women prove that certain competency, then they would have the right to a full vote, just like men who do, even if those women make up a small percentage. There is no rational reason why women should not vote. The only contras I have seen so far are hasty generalizations based on gender, misogyny and bias. There are women who can understand politics and vote responsibly. There are men who cannot. It is also true viceversa. Incompetent women should not vote. Neither should incompetent men. Both competent men and competent women should vote. I believe some universal differentiation should be made, to prove that competency.

I agree. That's why the half vote may or may not be reasonable. I even thought people with greater competency or position should get two votes maybe.

I think true democracy is giving everybody the opportunity to make a change if they feel there is a legitimate grievance which they feel strong enough to work to correct. The average person shouldn't vote in such case as the average person has not educated himself or takes much of a role in a vote. When people say "everybody should vote" that scares me. Why should a person who has no knowledge of the issues, or in some cases can't even make good decisions in their own life vote on decisions that effect the whole community's well being? In fact the masses of morons voting cancels out the legitmately educated people voting.

One requirement I think that should be attached is for every election you want to vote in you must attend a town hall meeting and discuss it with other citizens and have a little primer on the issues at hand so you have a more complete knowledge of how it impacts everyone.

I think the average person shouldn't bother voting unless there is some reason to. Why clog up the system with useless opinions? When you see an error that needs fixed- then go to the town hall meeting, pass a test and get a voting license then vote. Then besides that the small group of people involved in politics can vote and take care of problems- of which anyone who shows competency from the general population can join.

Anfang
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 07:46 PM
This demanded competency would be the ability to swing your sword (as it was historically), and even if there are some women who could compete with some men, the many that would get slain in the course of proving so are too much of a loss to justify the few emerging women worthy of a vote.
Better not allow it to them in the first place, women are biologically of too much value, than that they should be allowed to risk their lives while proving their worth like men do.

I hope that you do know that in Ancient germanic law if a man was challenged to adjudicate a dispute by combat by a peer, and he refused, then that man could be ordered to become the challengers slave, and lose his right to freedom or ever carry a weapon again, never mind "the vote"


....................:D:D:D



"to justify the few emerging women worthy of a vote.
Better not allow it to them in the first place, " No one should have any votes, female or male.

Chlodovech
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 08:16 PM
I think keeping participation in the voting process limited to the happy few - or giving particular citizens the right to vote twice or more - is a mistake. In a democracy it will be necessary to let people vote from a certain age, 'cause all else will lead to the robbing of the working class, strife and revolution. I don't believe that *true* mass-democracy exists, though. Yet substituting elections that are open to all with 'democracy for the best minds', to achieve 'true democracy', is no option, and won't give us political stability. Either we all vote from a certain age or nobody votes. The same is true in regards to women: as long as we will be voting they should have their say, even if they're not fighting on the battlefield ... how many of us, modern day men, have battlefield experience? And who will produce our ammunition, planes and tanks when we would indeed be fighting a war? An industrial and total war requires the activation of the population for the war effort, you can't just say that these men and women that are good enough for laboring and dying are not fit to vote - that would be sowing the seeds of revolution.

Movements, political parties and persons that don't endorse the system are to be found on the fringe of society, not exactly your typical university audience, to put it mildly. In other words: it's the blue collar workers, the unemployed, the little man and the most vulnerable families in our countries - who will suffer the most from political exclusion because the establishment deems their judgement dumb and irrelevant - and consequently, the greater part of the support base against the current politcal order and its ideas of multiculturalism and globalism, will be lost. I'd say that those men and women coming from the lower class have a far better view of reality 'cause they're living it every day, and that it's the more intelligent members of society who are actually clueless about anything that ever mattered.

Moreover, elite voting requirements like this in our societies would give those who represent the status quo of social-liberalism the power to remake our society even more radical.

Even if the situation would be the other way around, if we would be ruled by a folkish nationalist government, I would reject the notion of 'voting for the elite' just as much as I reject the voting process of a liberal democracy. I'm all for implementing the people's will, but voting for parties doesn't seem to do the trick - it's overrated - I'd favor plesbicites in combination with the rule of a monarch over being ruled by parties, for instance.

Patrioten
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Even if the situation would be the other way around, if we would be ruled by a folkish nationalist government, I would reject the notion of 'voting for the elite' just as much as I reject the voting process of a liberal democracy. I'm all for implementing the people's will, but voting for parties doesn't seem to do the trick - it's overrated - I'd favor plesbicites in combination with the rule of a monarch over being ruled by parties, for instance.I don't see a problem with the "class" (should be stånd but I don't know of an English word for it, 'position' or 'standing' would be better) based parliament which existed up until the voting rights reforms were introduced, but today there can be no such thing since there is no longer an aristocracy, no longer a priesthood deserving of authority and influence, and no longer a land-owning farmer-class forming the backbone of our people.

I too am in favor of a monarchy, with the feature of certain plesbicites in deciding upon local matters that do not deal directly with the foundation of the state or nation itself (which are instead to be codified in a "constitution" of sorts and not subject to change). I also think that any such plesbicites should be subject to a much stronger majority criteria than a mere 51% (perhaps 2/3ds or more), and there should also be a critera demanding a minimum (high) level of voter turn-out for the measure to take effect.

Brynhild
Monday, December 29th, 2008, 11:56 PM
No one should be allowed to vote for anything unless they have a clear and informed perception of the consequences of that vote.

And pray tell, when would that be? Past the age of 40 perhaps? Assuming of course that they haven't fried their brains completely by then.


Hey, I am far from being a feminist :thumbsdow. Of course good things come from us men. But the two wars are results of androcracy, right?

You seem to have forgotten who the good things have to have come from in the first place. Someone had to give birth to the likes of you!


Loddfafner


How is that!
LOL!
is Women’s Suffrage an aspect of modernness?

Personally I want a Fair Rational Patriarchy, which is overseen by a rational and Objective, Educated male population.

Patriarchy is what's ultimately killing the world as we know it. Personally, I'm all for balance, accepting the opposing forces that must work together to create it.

In Australia, it is mandatory to vote once you turn 18. Part of me disagrees with this, but I also know that no one would bother to vote at all, given the pathetic politicians of choice that we have.

As I recall, true democracy only allowed men the right to vote, and I'm not a democrat. Since men no longer hunt and provide for their families like they used to (as had already been stated), it's up to me - as a woman - to vote for my family and I the best way I can. I am interested in politics and I keep myself up to speed in this regard. Otherwise, I would be all for the idea of the family vote, and only by those who have proven themselves as honourably as they can (we've all be felons at one time or another...).

For Deary, back in the days when society was more patriarchal, women were treated no better than cattle. I really think you shortchange yourself insofar as your self-worth is concerned. There's hope for you, though, as you get older.

Koenigsberg
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Neither men nor women should be able to vote.

Deary
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 12:07 AM
For Deary, back in the days when society was more patriarchal, women were treated no better than cattle. I really think you shortchange yourself insofar as your self-worth is concerned. There's hope for you, though, as you get older.

Why do you assume this?

Achtland
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Of course women should be allowed to vote. However, there are certain people, especially 18 year olds, who don't understand enough about politics who have the rights to vote and they are also males.

Anfang
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 02:13 AM
Why do you assume this?

assume? what do you mean asume???

What do you think "the rule of thumb" means?
The rule of thumb was in medieaval time and unwritten understanding in english Norman times that a man could beat his wife with a rod no thiker than his thumb without aprobium.

The excavated skeletons of ancient greek women married to free greek men (Athens) show malnutrition compared with the male *slaves* (pomerantz :"Goddesses whores and slaves"). the ligaments on the shoulders and elbows of women showed signs of having streched and torn , something indicative of having carried heavy things for long perriods of time, thoughout the years. males showed no such wear and tear.

In 13th Century an english ship averted sinking by tossing overboard not the cargo but the Women on Bord. this was duly reported by the captain i his report
"oh and by the way, because of the gale we threw the women overboard...:"

There is a litany of evidence available is undisputable that women have suffered historically under idiot males.

Jäger
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 07:38 AM
I hope that you do know that in Ancient germanic law if a man was challenged to adjudicate a dispute by combat by a peer, and he refused, then that man could be ordered to become the challengers slave, and lose his right to freedom or ever carry a weapon again, never mind "the vote"
What has this to do with women voting?


No one should have any votes, female or male.
This depends on the people, a Frankling wouldn't even accept to be not part of the decision making, our current masses are fine with it though :shrug


Patriarchy is what's ultimately killing the world as we know it.
Could you elaborate here?


For Deary, back in the days when society was more patriarchal, women were treated no better than cattle.
Read more Shakespear :)

Deary
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 07:53 AM
Anfang, there's no need for your lengthy explaination. I was responding to the part which I underlined.

Ulf
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 08:25 AM
What do you think "the rule of thumb" means?
The rule of thumb was in medieaval time and unwritten understanding in english Norman times that a man could beat his wife with a rod no thiker than his thumb without aprobium.

No.


..."Rule of thumb" doesn't refer to wife beating...
For more than 300 years "rule of thumb" has meant what most people think it means: any rough-and-ready method of estimating. It's believed to have originated with woodworkers, who made measurements with their thumbs. For more than 20 years, however, some feminists have maintained that rule of thumb has the darker meaning alluded to above. They say that the principle of regulated wife beating was elucidated in the famous legal commentaries of William Blackstone (1723-'80), the basis of much U.S. common law, and that it prevailed in state courts well into the 19th century.

However, in Blackstone, as Sommers notes, there's no mention of the rule of thumb. We do find the following discussion: "The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children. . . . But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-'85], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband." In other words, once upon a time in olde England, a man could beat his wife. But don't try it now.

Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited it in 1655, religious groups campaigned against it, and vigilantes occasionally horsewhipped men accused of it. Most states had explicitly outlawed it by 1870.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2550/does-rule-of-thumb-refer-to-an-old-law-permitting-wife-beating

Anfang
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 11:16 PM
However, in Blackstone, as Sommers notes, there's no mention of the rule of thumb. We do find the following discussion: "The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children. . . . But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-'85], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband." In other words, once upon a time in olde England, a man could beat his wife. But don't try it now.

So we post that it was common to beat the wife and ok, but we have to count on the whims of a hierarchic patriarchal men's order to not abuse..
and you people thank the post. Amazing.


You guys are too much.

Read What it says above.


language and phrases change with time.


The Word Stupid used to mean "Wonderous"



And it could not have too meanings, of course not.

Down (Downwards) and goose Down

Hail ( as in hail Mary) Hail (as in hailstones)

left (as in the left hand) left (as in he left her house)

Ulf
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 11:37 PM
I'd be happy to read any sources you provide.

Anfang
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 12:09 AM
I'd be happy to read any sources you provide.

I will look for sources, I do not you may not be right. I could have very well been hoodwinked into believing that the provenance of the Phraze was twofold and that in fact it is a concoction on the part of feminists.
I will look.

What is Bothersome is that in the above post I quote your post, which you posted in order to refute my statement in which it clearly states that there was an asumed male right to beat their wife, and you are not at all interested in this apalling reality. and then two people thank your posts because you have somehow "debunked my statement" when in fact the very text that You used proves that men had the "right" to beat their wives!!!

This discourse was at a place where Brynhild had rightfully brought brought up the spectre of nonaccountable abusive males making life for women Hell -*again*. I make a post, and then you "refute" one of 3 examples, ant this is somehow a victory for the patriarchist side , Where in fact your very post contains admission of former abuse. It boggles the mind that you can post proof of my point, and this is considered a victory .

Ulf
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 12:30 AM
I was only concerned with the phrase "rule of thumb".

The rest of my post is what is it. I've jumped into this argument only to mention the correct usage of the phrase. I've no desire to argue the past legalities of wife-beating.

Anfang
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 01:56 AM
I was only concerned with the phrase "rule of thumb".

The rest of my post is what is it. I've jumped into this argument only to mention the correct usage of the phrase. I've no desire to argue the past legalities of wife-beating.

Well in that case, thank you for unintentiionally bolstering my position. It is a shame that the history of abuse does not bring thoughts of disdain *about* that abuse. at leas not enough to make a brief comment or care about the subject.

ladybright
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 06:19 AM
I should hope so. I am a fan of democracy.

varangian_guard
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 06:58 AM
i think the right to vote is a privilege that is earned. the question should not come down to gender, but to whether or not that right is deserved. becoming a voter requires certain qualifications...which is the capability of coming to an informed decision that is in the best interests of the public and nation.

basically, the right should not come down to gender, but to intelligence, education, experience, etc. as long as a woman has the above attributes, then why strip away of a decent citizen's right to vote?

Ulf
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 07:41 AM
It is a shame that the history of abuse does not bring thoughts of disdain *about* that abuse. at leas not enough to make a brief comment or care about the subject.

I can abhor it without going on diatribes on the internet.

Dagna
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 11:49 AM
This demanded competency would be the ability to swing your sword (as it was historically), and even if there are some women who could compete with some men, the many that would get slain in the course of proving so are too much of a loss to justify the few emerging women worthy of a vote.
Better not allow it to them in the first place, women are biologically of too much value, than that they should be allowed to risk their lives while proving their worth like men do.
This is, I believe, the 21st century, swinging swords is no longer required. There is no danger - physical or mental - to women that comes from taking tests to prove their ability. Critical, independent, free thinking has never harmed anyone, so you would not have to worry about it harming the female gender. No one is going to "slay" them.

Jäger
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 12:12 PM
This is, I believe, the 21st century, swinging swords is no longer required.
This was metaphorical speaking, of course. If you want to have a say in your country, you also have to defend that country.
The most traditional Kantons in Switzerland show their vote by raising their rifle (as did ancient Germanics in the Thing with their swords), and it were those who had to be forced by national Swiss court order to allow women to vote, as recent as 1990.


Until a 1990 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, women did not have the right to vote at the cantonal level in Appenzell Innerrhoden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appenzell_Innerrhoden


There is no danger - physical or mental - to women that comes from taking tests to prove their ability.
Those who are not in the military shouldn't even think about voting.


Critical, independent, free thinking has never harmed anyone, so you would not have to worry about it harming the female gender.
Just because you are thinking critical and independent does in no way follow that you can't come to a (for others) harmful conclusion.

Dagna
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 01:01 PM
This was metaphorical speaking, of course. If you want to have a say in your country, you also have to defend that country.
The women who give birth to many children after a war are just as valuable as the men who spent their blood to defend the country. Without women's wombs there would be no new generation of soldiers.


The most traditional Kantons in Switzerland show their vote by raising their rifle (as did ancient Germanics in the Thing with their swords), and it were those who had to be forced by national Swiss court order to allow women to vote, as recent as 1990.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appenzell_Innerrhoden


Those who are not in the military shouldn't even think about voting.
The Thing allowed women to have a say and in Germania women were also allowed to carry swords. Only after Christian "morals" set in the discrimination against women began, I believe.


Just because you are thinking critical and independent does in no way follow that you can't come to a (for others) harmful conclusion.
Just because you can handle a sword does not mean you can't either.

Jäger
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 03:35 PM
The women who give birth to many children after a war are just as valuable as the men who spent their blood to defend the country. Without women's wombs there would be no new generation of soldiers.
This is exactly the point why they must not risk their lives!
I have said it many times now, women are biologically more worth than men, men are biological cannon fodder (there is even a biological instinct of men to defend women). And because it is men who shall defend the group, they need the power over it, or else they couldn't fulfill this task.
You need rights that empower you to fulfill your duties, the duty of giving birth does not demand a lot of rights, and certainly not voting.


The Thing allowed women to have a say and in Germania women were also allowed to carry swords. Only after Christian "morals" set in the discrimination against women began, I believe.
If this is true, which I doubt, then this was idiotic, and could explain why they eventually failed at defending their ways against Christianity.
I told you why this is a bad idea, and, indirectly, you supported my point with your first remark. Who will give birth to the soldiers if the women die already on the battlefield?


Just because you can handle a sword does not mean you can't either.
Indeed, and never has a claim been uttered in this direction by me.

Dagna
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 03:47 PM
This is exactly the point why they must not risk their lives!
I have said it many times now, women are biologically more worth than men, men are biological cannon fodder (there is even a biological instinct of men to defend women). And because it is men who shall defend the group, they need the power over it, or else they couldn't fulfill this task.
You need rights that empower you to fulfill your duties, the duty of giving birth does not demand a lot of rights, and certainly not voting.
How do women "risk their lives" by voting?


If this is true, which I doubt, then this was idiotic, and could explain why they eventually failed at defending their ways against Christianity.
I told you why this is a bad idea, and, indirectly, you supported my point with your first remark. Who will give birth to the soldiers if the women die already on the battlefield?
There is a big difference between being on the battlefield and voting. Voting does not render a woman unable to produce children.


I am not sure what you want to say here. :confused
You said:
Just because you are thinking critical and independent does in no way follow that you can't come to a (for others) harmful conclusion.

I am saying:
Just because you can handle a sword it does in no way follow that you can't come to a (for others) harmful conclusion.

Are you suggesting that everyone who can handle a sword/who is in the military or whatever your criteria for voting is, cannot come to a harmful conclusion? To make a sound decision about the future of your country you must be familiar with its historical, political and civic affairs. It has little to do with being able to handle a sword or fire a gun.

Achtland
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008, 10:27 PM
This question is very passe and has caused many bad blood, usually amongst strong women and gullible, weaker women. Also the latter group have been prevelant in a traditional commune so they say things like "We don't believe in voting, we prefer to bake and have many bubs in the oven," and hide behind their knuckle dragging husbands. Sorry for the typecast but that's what they are like in cicles.

Hauke Haien
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 01:42 AM
Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited it in 1655, religious groups campaigned against it, and vigilantes occasionally horsewhipped men accused of it. Most states had explicitly outlawed it by 1870.
Thank you, Ulf. This actually proves that attitudes concerning violence against women were capable of changing without the need for voting rights, increased political participation or even political power. The pillars of a moral order are laws and social control within the community. Female particularism can achieve nothing except making our destruction as comfortable for women as possible.

CordeliaforLear
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 02:26 AM
Thank you, Ulf. This actually proves that attitudes concerning violence against women were capable of changing without the need for voting rights, increased political participation or even political power. The pillars of a moral order are laws and social control within the community. Female particularism can achieve nothing except making our destruction as comfortable for women as possible.

The fruits of feminism have been written on the wall for quite some time now: increase in divorce, decrease of the birthrate, more rape, more promiscuity, more crime, more misery.

Patrioten
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 02:31 AM
The fruits of feminism have been written on the wall for quite some time now: increase in divorce, decrease of the birthrate, more rape, more promiscuity, more crime, more misery.Aren't you leaving out some other important changes in society in that equation?

Jäger
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 07:58 AM
How do women "risk their lives" by voting?
[..]
There is a big difference between being on the battlefield and voting. Voting does not render a woman unable to produce children.
Are you doing this on purpose, or have you really forgotten what I was saying a few posts earlier?
You agreed that in order to be allowed to vote, there should be an universal criterion applying for both men and women alike.
I told you the best criterion I can think of, and if we would apply it to women, it would be destructive for the group, because they would have to risk their lives.


Are you suggesting that everyone who can handle a sword/who is in the military or whatever your criteria for voting is, cannot come to a harmful conclusion?
No, it is just the best selection criterion.


To make a sound decision about the future of your country you must be familiar with its historical, political and civic affairs.
True, I have nothing against tightening the requirements even more, Aristocracy for the win :thumbup :)


It has little to do with being able to handle a sword or fire a gun.
I told you why it has very much to do with it.

Dagna
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 11:24 AM
Are you doing this on purpose, or have you really forgotten what I was saying a few posts earlier?
You agreed that in order to be allowed to vote, there should be an universal criterion applying for both men and women alike.
I told you the best criterion I can think of, and if we would apply it to women, it would be destructive for the group, because they would have to risk their lives.
The best criterion you could think of is not the best criterion. I believe you have a problem correlating facts. Being in the military and swinging a sword is not a guarantee or being familiar with your country's political problems. It is a matter of physical strength and ability. If you want to base voting on physical strength then you might as well give it to the mercenaries who fight to protect your country.


No, it is just the best selection criterion.
You have a problem proving that. For the last time, voting, i.e. being involved in a decision about one's country requires intellect and thinking.


True, I have nothing against tightening the requirements even more, Aristocracy for the win :thumbup :)
Female aristocracy exists too.


I told you why it has very much to do with it.
I didn't think National Socialism and critical thinking were compatible and yes, was I right. Drop the ad hominems and refute what I said if you have anything of essence to say. For the last time, please make up a logical reason why voting would harm women or prevent them from bearing children.

Jäger
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 01:23 PM
Being in the military and swinging a sword is not a guarantee or being familiar with your country's political problems.
I never said so. Still, it should be (one) prerequisite, and I already told you why.


It is a matter of physical strength and ability. If you want to base voting on physical strength then you might as well give it to the mercenaries who fight to protect your country.
What makes you conclude that this would be the only criterion for suffrage?


You have a problem proving that.
I already did, and since you don't refer to it and refute it, I must assume you even accept it.


For the last time, voting, i.e. being involved in a decision about one's country requires intellect and thinking.
I already agreed, didn't I?


Female aristocracy exists too.
Just for the record, I don't refer to nobility, when I am speaking about Aristocracy,
I refer to the meaning defined by Aristotle.


For the last time, please make up a logical reason why voting would harm women or prevent them from bearing children.
I already did, you just don't address them, show me where they are wrong.

beowulf wodenson
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 11:26 PM
My feeling on suffrage in general, including females, is that any potential voters must be informed citizens able to to prove a reasonable minimum threshhold of education concerning current issues, the history and institutions of their country in that country's language.
They should further be proven property owners paying appropriate taxes and able to demonstrate no burden on society.
I think voters in my country should be able to pass a "civics" exam demonstrating essential knowledge of how our government works, the Constitution, knowledge of our history and institutions. This would eliminate in large part the effect of ignorant, uninformed morons in elections.
In the old Republic, only White male citizens owning above a certain minimum of property could vote, not a bad starting point.
These days, any humanoid biped can vote, far too many imbeciles totally ignorant of what they're voting on, and what impact electing individuals like Hussein Obongo will have.
Many that were so hyped up for Obongo, when interviewed, did not even know what party had the majority in Congress, or even how the Congress was divided into two chambers! :|
The ignorant masses are thus able to influence what affects responsible, informed Citizens as well with the existence of near universal suffrage.
This was meant to be a Constitutional Republic, not pluralist 'democracy'.
The Founders did not intend for the ignorant and uninformed to rule, you know, like the douchebags in D.C. today!

Haereticus
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I appreciate that women, as a voting group, have often been responsible for the election of poor candidates and counterproductive legislation. Decades of creeping feminism have had catastrophic effects on our societies and left millions of devastated and dysfunctional families in its wake. Nevertheless, the idea of disenfranchising millions of intelligent reasonable people is unacceptable.

I know how annoyed I'd be if a group of feminists were suggesting it would be a good idea to take voting rights away from men (I'm sure they are). I'm certain many of them would have all manner of convoluted arguments explaining why this would be a good idea. I would consider excluding certifiable morons from taking any part in political decisions. Not that voting matters in practicality. Our so-called democracy is just a façade. The bulk of our populations are under-educated, ignorant, misinformed and in the spell of the mainstream media. Ultimately, for the most part, male or female, they just vote for one of the two 'approved' parties they're told to vote for.

lei.talk
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 06:28 AM
Ultimately, for the most part, male or female,
they just vote for one of the two 'approved' parties
they're told to vote for.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=917501#post917501

Chad Krueger
Monday, January 12th, 2009, 09:03 AM
I shock people who know me with this: I believe that in an ideal situation (which is not true of the world now or of many people) married women should not vote and a man with a family should have more of a vote than singles. A woman should be able to trust her husband to vote for the good of the family (he would consult her and take her input into consideration). Unless she is acting head of family and then the woman should vote. On the other hand I don't think that all women should be barred from political/leadership rolls in the rare case she is suited to it. I don't think women should be encouraged to do so and to moan until there exactly as many , or more, women in office (or whatever other roll) as men is disgusting and unnatural.
I second BW's opinion, but unfortunately even most educated people are too stupid to see the ultimate impact of what they vote in. Requiring land ownership might help but there are problems with that now.
As if voting really counts any longer out of a small local area. :rolleyes:

I too believe the male is the head of the household and it is his responsibility that the family be provided for. He is the final say over all matters but with this comes full responsibility for any failure. No! Women should not vote.

Ragner
Monday, January 12th, 2009, 12:34 PM
Very interesting thread because of the majority of voters favoring female suffrage.

I'll just state my opinion on who should have the right to vote:

Men above the age of 25.
Men who has or are serving in the armed forces.
Men who pay tax.

That's it and what is mecessary to ensure our future existence!

Rozenstorm
Monday, January 12th, 2009, 02:59 PM
Wel, I don't think there is any reason why women should not be able to vote, we have the same average IQ. However, men have more outlyers. That means that there are three times as much mentally retarded men as women but also that there are three times as more male geniusses than female. The chances that you find a female 'Einstein', for example are 300 times smaller than finding a male 'Einstein'. :)

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 10:30 PM
Wel, I don't think there is any reason why women should not be able to vote, we have the same average IQ. However, men have more outlyers. That means that there are three times as much mentally retarded men as women but also that there are three times as more male geniusses than female. The chances that you find a female 'Einstein', for example are 300 times smaller than finding a male 'Einstein'. :)

It's not so much IQ-type intelligence as a difference in thought modes, which has been supported by most scientific studies:

http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html

Nordic Angel
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 11:58 PM
This demanded competency would be the ability to swing your sword (as it was historically), and even if there are some women who could compete with some men, the many that would get slain in the course of proving so are too much of a loss to justify the few emerging women worthy of a vote.
So if I swung my sword and did not get slain in a battle, I would get the vote according to that logic? Lol... :)


This demanded competency would be the ability to swing your sword (as it was historically)
Does this mean that men who are weak and unable swing their sword should not get the vote either? Or men who don't want to swing their sword and refuse to fight?


This was metaphorical speaking, of course. If you want to have a say in your country, you also have to defend that country.
Keep in mind that women do defend their country by giving birth to the new generation of our folk. :) Women are warriors because they give birth. Men are warriors because they fight on the battlefield. Both are noble occupations that help ensure the survival of our folk. My fertility is my weapon and your sword is your weapon.

A fertile Germanic woman is comparable to a Germanic man carrying a weapon. A childless feminist woman is comparable to a man who refuses to fight in a war. And a Germanic woman who gave birth to 10 or 12 Germanic children should have the high reputation of a war hero. :)

So a woman who has "swung her sword" (which means she has given birth to children) can be called a defender of her folk and it's survival, right? She risked her life when she gave birth, just like men risk their lives when they fight in a war. In the past, many women died during childbirth and many men died on the battlefield.

Feminists who don't want children and men who don't want to fight should not get the vote. So just give the vote to all fertile Germanic women who have Germanic children and also to all Germanic men who serve in the military, okay? :) They are true defenders of our country and our folk.


This is exactly the point why they must not risk their lives!
Women risk their lives when giving birth to each single child of theirs. Some women even die during childbirth just like some men die on the battlefield. I see no reason to keep a woman from voting or doing anything in society (except joining the army), as long as she has at least 2 or 3 children (preferably more).


I have said it many times now, women are biologically more worth than men, men are biological cannon fodder
How sweet of you.

Do I have to say in turn now, that men are culturally more worth than women and that women are machines for producing children?


There is even a biological instinct of men to defend women.
Which is why women should not be in the military. When women are in the military, men are often unable to suppress their protective instinct and rather concentrate on the protection of the women than on attacking the enemy. It's distracting their attention from attacking the enemy, thus an army of women and men is less effective. This has been reported by armys where women took part.


And because it is men who shall defend the group, they need the power over it, or else they couldn't fulfill this task. You need rights that empower you to fulfill your duties, the duty of giving birth does not demand a lot of rights, and certainly not voting.
But giving birth is a form of defending the survival of a group. Women want to have a say in their country because it's the country their children will grow up in. They care about their children's future. :)


Who will give birth to the soldiers if the women die already on the battlefield?
I agree with you on this. I certainly don't want to be on the battlefield. But why does one have to fight on the battlefield in order to vote? There are also other ways of serving your country (for example having children).

Bärin
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Women should have the right to vote and receive compulsory political education. We as mothers will be the ones to educate our children, so ignorance about politics is unacceptable. I am not going to rely on men alone to decide the kind of world my children are going to live in.

Leof
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 07:52 AM
I don't think anyone should vote since I don't like that form of government.

Jäger
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 10:15 AM
So if I swung my sword and did not get slain in a battle, I would get the vote according to that logic? Lol... :)
No, according to that logic, you wouldn't be allowed to swing your sword.


Does this mean that men who are weak and unable swing their sword should not get the vote either?
Yes.


Or men who don't want to swing their sword and refuse to fight?
Yes.


Keep in mind that women do defend their country by giving birth to the new generation of our folk. :)
Yes, Dagna said the same thing, read my response to her.


So a woman who has "swung her sword" (which means she has given birth to children) can be called a defender of her folk and it's survival, right? She risked her life when she gave birth, just like men risk their lives when they fight in a war. In the past, many women died during childbirth and many men died on the battlefield.
Yes.


Feminists who don't want children and men who don't want to fight should not get the vote.
No.


So just give the vote to all fertile Germanic women who have Germanic children and also to all Germanic men who serve in the military, okay? :)
No.


They are true defenders of our country and our folk.
Yes.


Women risk their lives when giving birth to each single child of theirs. Some women even die during childbirth just like some men die on the battlefield.
You said that already.


I see no reason to keep a woman from voting or doing anything in society (except joining the army), as long as she has at least 2 or 3 children (preferably more).
The reason is the interference with the responsibilities of the men, who need the control of the state to defend it with the sword, while women do not need that right to give birth.


Do I have to say in turn now, that men are culturally more worth than women and that women are machines for producing children?
No, the right inversion would be: "Men are culturally more worth than women, and women are culturally cannon fodder (following every trend, as long as it is popular) " ;)


Which is why women should not be in the military.
Yes.


But giving birth is a form of defending the survival of a group.
Yes, you said that already.


Women want to have a say in their country because it's the country their children will grow up in. They care about their children's future. :)
Fathers do not? Nevertheless everyone wants a say, but to what kind of mob rule that leads we can observe right now.


But why does one have to fight on the battlefield in order to vote? There are also other ways of serving your country (for example having children).
It is not about serving your country, it is about getting rights according to your duties.
For instance, a bodyguard could protect you best, if he had control over you, if you say "I want to go to the annual fair", and he says "No, I can't protect you there well enough" it is clear, he knows that, you don't.
He has the duty of your protection, and to fulfill it best, he needs the right to control you (that's why patriarchy always succeeds over any other form of family). And it doesn't matter that you could give birth to 3-10 new little bodyguards, this is just more reason to protect you right, and not halfhearted.

Sigurd
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 04:31 PM
Dear Jäger, I see where you are coming from, but to assume that a society needs only the warrior is a misjudgment of the greatest sort.

In times of peace it also needs the builders, the growers, the intellectual, the doctor, the lawyer, the priest, the diplomat. Some of these may not be of the immediate constitution or talent to become apt warriors, but are equally integral to society. Should they be denied their vote?

In tmes of war it also needs the growers (the soldiers still have to eat), the doctor (the wounded need to be healed), the diplomat (obvious), etc. Whilst it is desirable that all members of society contribute something to the effort of defense of the folk --- some of the most-able bodied are indeed best as warriors in the field, but some are more suited to tend to their wounds between battles.

Finally, if the ability to hold a sword were to be the pointer which decided as to who would get the vote, the overwhelming majority of the elderly would be excluded from having their say --- and that when they are the ones most likely to have the experience to use their voting rights sensibly and wisely, and also the ones who by rights would have earned their say more than even the most valiant young swordsman for their service to their folk over several decades.

All these people are needed for safeguarding the folk either through their experience, their knowledge or their sheer force both in times of peace and in times of war --- as such, they should either be collectively allowed their voting rights, or collectively denied them. For on the field of battle, the medic is no less crucial than the soldier.

And yes, at the end of the day, a folk also needs the mothers and the children, but I understand your argument revolves around the men of society, so I will leave them out of it.

Jäger
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:31 PM
Dear Jäger, I see where you are coming from, but to assume that a society needs only the warrior is a misjudgment of the greatest sort.
I never said that, what I said is, that it is the warrior who needs control (in this case "votes").


In times of peace it also needs the builders, the growers, the intellectual, the doctor, the lawyer, the priest, the diplomat.
Even in times of war!


Should they be denied their vote?
Yes.


Finally, if the ability to hold a sword were to be the pointer which decided as to who would get the vote, the overwhelming majority of the elderly would be excluded from having their say --- and that when they are the ones most likely to have the experience to use their voting rights sensibly and wisely, and also the ones who by rights would have earned their say more than even the most valiant young swordsman for their service to their folk over several decades.
No one denies anyone to listen to others when thinking about decision. If what those old men have to say is of interest, they will be heard, regardless of their right to vote or not. (The same goes for women)


All these people are needed for safeguarding the folk either through their experience, their knowledge or their sheer force both in times of peace and in times of war --- as such, they should either be collectively allowed their voting rights, or collectively denied them.
No, sounds pretty egalitarian. The wisdom is: rights according to duties.
And of course not everyone who is a warrior should have the right to vote, but at least it should be a prerequisite.


For on the field of battle, the medic is no less crucial than the soldier.
The medic is a warrior, and in Germanic societies we hail the peasant warrior. :)


And yes, at the end of the day, a folk also needs the mothers and the children, but I understand your argument revolves around the men of society, so I will leave them out of it.
Hm, women are included in my argument, the point is: not everyone we need should have a say, only those that need to have a say. ;)

Sigurd
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 06:45 PM
I never said that, what I said is, that it is the warrior who needs control (in this case "votes").

So, if you portray that onwards into other "small societies": If we were members of the same party, or the same Nationalist organisation --- the frontline skinhead who rarely contributes to policy but is necessary as a fighting force for "our cause" as it were should be allowed to vote upon propositions that concern the welfare of said party/organisation, but the think-tanks, the intellectuals who stay out of the street squabble but call to the weapons should not?

Or are they the officers rather than just intellectuals? The question here is quite similar to for example the question whether getting to Valhalla means death in literal battle, or whether it can be seen as a metaphor.

I'm not arguing either model in this case --- but the question is: Would that not be rather like empowering the mass, the working class, whilst denying the middle and upper classes their vote on important issue?


No one denies anyone to listen to others when thinking about decision. If what those old men have to say is of interest, they will be heard, regardless of their right to vote or not. (The same goes for women)

An old man said Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. ;)


No, sounds pretty egalitarian. The wisdom is: rights according to duties.
And of course not everyone who is a warrior should have the right to vote, but at least it should be a prerequisite.

Again back to the point I argued above: So the frontline soldier be allowed their say in the king's hall whilst the far-travelled diplomat (unless you see him as a scout, he is not a warrior) not be allowed their say even though he more likely be more knowledgeable at all these matters?


The medic is a warrior, and in Germanic societies we hail the peasant warrior. :)

What about the farmer who contributes to the war effort by growing crops for the soldiers? Is he then not also a warrior, but in a different function. If so, I can see your judgment, otherwise it's only half the picture.



Hm, women are included in my argument, the point is: not everyone we need should have a say, only those that need to have a say. ;)

I can see a point in that. But I still fail to see why the immediate warrior should be the only one. What about the metaphorical warriors, who fight other battles for the folk? ;)

Rozenstorm
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 07:37 PM
It's not so much IQ-type intelligence as a difference in thought modes, which has been supported by most scientific studies:

http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html

Well, that doesn't change the IQ-tests, does it? ;)

Jäger
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Or are they the officers rather than just intellectuals?
If they have never fought themselves, then they shouldn't command over others in battle. This should answer your question.


So the frontline soldier be allowed their say in the king's hall whilst the far-travelled diplomat (unless you see him as a scout, he is not a warrior) not be allowed their say even though he more likely be more knowledgeable at all these matters?
No "diplomats", we have Herolds :)


What about the farmer who contributes to the war effort by growing crops for the soldiers?
He keeps contributing. As I already said, rights according to duties, he needs the right to command over his land, so we give him property and freedom. He doesn't need to control the state to grow his crops.


I can see a point in that. But I still fail to see why the immediate warrior should be the only one.
"Immediate warrior"? Those in command of defending the nation.


What about the metaphorical warriors, who fight other battles for the folk? ;)
They get the rights they need to fulfill their duties.

Sigurd
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 10:53 PM
If they have never fought themselves, then they shouldn't command over others in battle. This should answer your question.

What if there's no war for a lifetime? By that account, no one in Sweden or Switzerland should have the command over anyone, they haven't had a part in a battle for a long time.

Also --- assume I left myself the option open to become a Legal Officer in the army, with the intent to advice our armed services in matters legal. Would I be denied your vote? :)


He keeps contributing. As I already said, rights according to duties, he needs the right to command over his land, so we give him property and freedom. He doesn't need to control the state to grow his crops.

What sets him aside from the warrior then? A warrior also only fulfils his duty, defense is his.

Why in times of peace the military should have a greater say than the builders of the nation who physically and spiritually have contributed to the nation, is beyond me however.

In short, if you allow the average soldier on mission to Afghanistan or whatever their vote, but deny it to the likes of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and all those other thinkers --- wouldn't that result in an overmartialisation of the whole thing?

To assume that a frontline soldier have a greater say about how educational budget should be allocated than either the economist or the teacher is beyond me.


"Immediate warrior"? Those in command of defending the nation.

So, in short only your generals and other commanders should decide all parts of the nation's well-being? Why not abolish the vote altogether then, in that case?


They get the rights they need to fulfill their duties.

Surely then, it would be more sensible to allow people a vote only in those matters that directly concern them: I.e. the farmers about farmers' business, the teacher about educational matters, the soldier about military defense and the priest about religious undertakings? And yes, the women about matters concerning motherhood and "female issues"? :)

Gustavus Magnus
Sunday, January 18th, 2009, 11:42 PM
I voted no, seeing as I don't believe in democracy.

Grimsteinr
Monday, January 19th, 2009, 02:40 PM
Only land or property owners and those who have served military duty
should be allowed to vote. Noone else has earned the right, men or women.
All should earn the Right, to make decisions.

If women fit in either of these two categories, certainly, allow them to Vote,
likewise with men. Anyone who has not proven themselves of sufficient substance should not be allowed to Vote.
All these good-for-nothings that leech off of others' labors and efforts, do not deserve to vote.

Jäger
Monday, January 19th, 2009, 03:39 PM
What if there's no war for a lifetime? By that account, no one in Sweden or Switzerland should have the command over anyone, they haven't had a part in a battle for a long time.
No, they're are just no warriors. Non-warriors commanding over non-warriors is ok, but none of them should vote. :)


Also --- assume I left myself the option open to become a Legal Officer in the army, with the intent to advice our armed services in matters legal. Would I be denied your vote? :)
Most likely, I already told you that merely being a warrior is not even enough to get a vote.


What sets him aside from the warrior then? A warrior also only fulfils his duty, defense is his.
Different duties --> different rights; is that so hard to understand?


Why in times of peace the military should have a greater say than the builders of the nation who physically and spiritually have contributed to the nation, is beyond me however.
There is no peace, just truce.


In short, if you allow the average soldier on mission to Afghanistan or whatever their vote ...
I wouldn't, please read what I write.


... but deny it to the likes of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and all those other thinkers --- wouldn't that result in an overmartialisation of the whole thing?
No. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer make excellent counselors :).


To assume that a frontline soldier have a greater say about how educational budget should be allocated than either the economist or the teacher is beyond me.
I never said that, besides, both the economist and the teacher should and can be warriors.


So, in short only your generals and other commanders should decide all parts of the nation's well-being? Why not abolish the vote altogether then, in that case?
Depending on the circumstances, aristocracy is better than dictatorship. However, first there will be dictatorship, indeed.


Surely then, it would be more sensible to allow people a vote only in those matters that directly concern them: I.e. the farmers about farmers' business, the teacher about educational matters, the soldier about military defense and the priest about religious undertakings? And yes, the women about matters concerning motherhood and "female issues"? :)
If the warrior elite sees no concern of themselves in such things, they will give power aways anyways.
It is like decorations in your home, it is simply of no interest to me whether my wife puts Santa Claus or a Snowman up on the window, so she can decide and has all powers in this regards :D

Wolgadeutscher
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 01:01 AM
Democracy is bad as it is, but allowing women to vote practically sealed our fate. That's my answer, no, women should not be allowed to vote. Politics is men's domain and even if a small minority of women is quite capable, it is not worth risking our fate for it.

MCP3
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, 01:34 AM
Laughable thread, unbelievable in my view. This was said 70 years ago by the infamous Doctor from Rheydt.

"The great crises and upsets of national life show who the true men and women are. We have no right any longer to speak of the weaker sex, for both sexes are displaying the same determination and spiritual strength." Joseph Goebbels

NorthWestEuropean
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 04:18 PM
I think only people who deserves to vote should be able to. Perhaps through having done something good for the country, or perhaps through taking a test before voting where you prove that you know what the alternatives you will vote for stands for.

That is the problem with "democracy" of today. People don't know what they are voting for, despite gender. I asked both my parents why they vote for the Social Democrats, and they both answered; "Because it is still there from the childhood". I rest my case...

rainman
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 04:39 PM
Exactly. Nobody should have the right to vote. They should have the right to earn the right to vote. This should be done by displaying minimal comptency, education and loyalty to the nation. I'm glad when we have low voter turn out. Why would we want people who have no clue about the issues, candidates, political system etc. voting?

Resist
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 07:21 AM
No, I don't think women should be allowed to vote, along with a big number of men as well. I don't believe in democracy.

celticruine
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 07:35 AM
For me it´s clear that German Woman should vote.

Blod og Jord
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 10:53 AM
Yes they should.
I must say I don't like the downlooking at females,
by some fellow nationalists.
Not all females are supporters of feminism or lesbianism.
There are many female nationalists.

Rozenstorm
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 09:16 PM
The question concerning this topic is actually irrelevant, what should be the question is this:

Who can be permitted to vote and why?

Voting is wielding political authority, force. And with authority, there must always be responsibility, in all other cases it is random and thus unjust. In a 'normal' (i.e. in Western society) democracy, none hold responsible, everyone just thinks he (or she for that matter) can vote for whatever they like, get it, and all without a drop of blood or a tear of toil.

Immoral, really.

To answer my question, those who should be admitted to vote shouldn't be the masses (democracy), nor the elite (aristocracy), nor the scientists (technocracy) nor the bureaucrats (bureaucracy). It should be those who have proven that their commitment is above that of the individual level (favouring the society). For instance, enlisted (wo)men.

AngieCharlene
Saturday, October 31st, 2009, 05:08 AM
yes..

and for the male, the head of the family part , i dont think that's the whole truth..
a womans part in a family is really big.
she has to cook, clean, take care of the kids etc,etc..
i think a man will pick a woman of who he knows that she can handle it..
and if she can handle bringing up her children and teaching them wrong from right , why shouldn't she has the right to vote for a better way for her children?

Raising children is the most important job a woman or a man for that matter will ever have. The responsiblity of taking care of those children and raising them is exactly why most women should be able to vote. They have the needs of their children in mind. There are more men these days though who are cooking and cleaning. Men who are taking on the traditional "woman's" role. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but I don't care for it. I like my home life organzied, and in control. If my husband ran the house for a week chaos would insue.
Over all I think everyone should have to pass a psych eval to be able to do anything, including voting, or raising children. I have just seen too much child abuse and irresponsibilty and it has made me think we need to cull the herd somewhat.

VergesEngst
Sunday, November 1st, 2009, 02:52 PM
I think Rosenstorm is right to redefine the question: "Who can be permitted to vote and why?" That's really what is at issue here -- especially the "why". Once you have a solid philosophy of "why", the inclusion or exclussion of groups should fall out as a natural consequence of that.

I disagree, though, with the a priori list of groups that "should be excluded" (the masses, the scientists, the politicians). I think what matters is knowledge and intelligence. You should know about issues and be able to string thoughts together coherently.

I know that you can have intelligent, informed people who disagree wildly about political issues, so there can still be important political debates and I think that's fine: disagreement and comprimise can be healthy, in the way that all conflict can keep society strong.

A scientist who knows about a particular issue should be able to vote on that issue; and one who does not, should not. The same is true of beaurocrats, politicians, commoners, and, yes... even women. :)

Rozenstorm
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 01:00 PM
I think Rosenstorm is right to redefine the question: "Who can be permitted to vote and why?" That's really what is at issue here -- especially the "why". Once you have a solid philosophy of "why", the inclusion or exclussion of groups should fall out as a natural consequence of that.

I disagree, though, with the a priori list of groups that "should be excluded" (the masses, the scientists, the politicians). I think what matters is knowledge and intelligence. You should know about issues and be able to string thoughts together coherently.

I know that you can have intelligent, informed people who disagree wildly about political issues, so there can still be important political debates and I think that's fine: disagreement and comprimise can be healthy, in the way that all conflict can keep society strong.

A scientist who knows about a particular issue should be able to vote on that issue; and one who does not, should not. The same is true of beaurocrats, politicians, commoners, and, yes... even women. :)

You're missing the point, I never said a bureaucrat, aristocrat, commoner or whatever, can't vote, I said they'd have to prove, towards society, why they should be worthy of voting.

And for the record, if you are liberal like you state, your opinion would be that of votes for all.

VergesEngst
Monday, November 2nd, 2009, 01:47 PM
Rozenstorm says,


You're missing the point, I never said a bureaucrat, aristocrat, commoner or whatever, can't vote, I said they'd have to prove, towards society, why they should be worthy of voting.

I apologize, and you are right: I misunderstood. And now that you have said it as above, I agree with you completely.


And for the record, if you are liberal like you state, your opinion would be that of votes for all.

I describe myself as liberal because it's the closest thing in the American political taxonomy to what I believe; not because I epitomize the liberal stereotype completely.

Different people have different ideas about what they consider to be the "core" beliefs that constitute liberal ideology.

I am "socially liberal" in the sense that I don't care what people do by themselves, to themselves, or among consenting adults... and I don't think the government should care either.

I am "economically liberal" in the sense that I think we all share the benefits of certain "public goods" that make up the infrastructure of society. I don't believe that anyone in today's culture can claim he has "made it on his own", in the sense that he has benefitted from living in a society with safety standards, roads, police and fire departments, food inspection, public parks, and so on. And thus I don't mind paying taxes: it's how we "give back" to society; it's the price we pay for being civilized.

In those two senses, I am "liberal". Do I fit every "liberal" American stereotype? No. I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants. I have no sympathy for people who are poor because they've repeatedly made stupid choices in their lives. And I don't think anybody has a "right" to not be offended by anything.

In none of that, anyway, do I see the need to say "Everyone gets to vote."

Rozenstorm
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009, 06:25 PM
Fair enough.

Rightpath
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009, 10:16 PM
Yes I totaly believe in the right of women to vote and always have done, women earnt the right to vote through the Suffragette movement in this country and it goes along with the British values of fighting for what you believe in rather than running away from the problem.

Women have proved themselves capable of matching men in many fields, politics is certainly one of them.

Thusnelda
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 12:34 PM
We women have our fair share on the the rise of several nationalist and preservationist movements and parties in the past. I hope all of the sceptical men could see that.

Denying women the right to vote or to state their views is an un-Germanic attitude, an attitude some people have brought to our lands from the deserts of Near-/ and Middle-East and their respective religions. Either we fight and vote together as Germanic men and women or we can refrain from any fighting for our cultural and erthnic preservation at all.

Patrioten
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 02:44 PM
We women have our fair share on the the rise of several nationalist and preservationist movements and parties in the past. I hope all of the sceptical men could see that.

Denying women the right to vote or to state their views is an un-Germanic attitude, an attitude some people have brought to our lands from the deserts of Near-/ and Middle-East and their respective religions. Either we fight and vote together as Germanic men and women or we can refrain from any fighting for our cultural and erthnic preservation at all.The voting patterns between men and women have been quite similar here in Sweden at least up until pretty recently. Women were not more or less susceptible to the reds and their promises than men were.

The problem was that the socialists used the mandate they got on economical reform to further a social agenda that the voters didn't vote for. Yes, there were early warning signs in the party manifesto of the socialdemocrats here, but to think that people would have payed much attention to or delved deeper into the ideological foundation of the reds rather than just listen to their promises for better work conditions, better pay and better living conditions, is democratic hubris which is based upon the notion that the voters are made up of democratic intellectuals who cannot be fooled by political rethoric and tricks. I think we can all agree that this is a false notion.

Elections have, since the break through of universal suffrage and up until our time, been about economical issues first and foremost, and the reds have cleverly set the tone and the agenda to focus solely on class warfare whilst leaving the social agenda of their ideology in the background. This spawned a tradition of economical politics where value issues were toned down and where the emphasis was on getting all workers to unite against the rich and the conservative right which represented the rich in order for there to be economical reform.

The typical social democratic voter of the early 20th century would not have been socially radical, those individuals existed primarily within the party structure, among those who fully understood the ideology and for whom economical reform was just one part of a marxist influenced world view where everything in western society needed to be replaced or destroyed. Men and women voted for the social democrats to get better economical conditions for themselves, and they bought into the class warfare rethoric of rich vs poor, oppressor vs those oppressed. These voters however were born and raised in a society which was based upon traditional values, far from the radicalism which was present in the ideological roots of the social democratic workers party. The open radicalism was kept in check by the mother party for quite some time but was present from the beginning in the youth division (the classic relationship of realism vs idealism between a mother party and its youth division), a plant school of socialist thought where the future leaders and party members of SAP would be educated.

One could compare this to Germany where national socialism can be seen as an attempt to bridge the gap between socialist economics and traditional values, albeit to an extent altered to suit the party ideology the basic message was still "family", "country" (vaterland), and to some extent God, to attract the "working class". This I think points to the appeal that economical socialism blended with social conservatism had on the supposedly radical "working class".

Even the Swedish social democrats used traditionalism in their propaganda to make it appear as though they were similarly sympathetic to traditionalist values and ideas but at the same time they were equally quick to attack the right for using "non-issues", value issues, when it suited their goals, to lure voters away from the issues that really mattered, social justice, class warfare and working class unity. And as time passed and the socialists became entrenched in power there was less of a need to hide their radicalism because the social democrats had become something of a natural order, the foremost authority on what constituted just and good politics as opposed to unjust and evil such. When the social democratic party, party n.b, put forth a socially radical idea, there might have been some initial controversy but at this point they had the middle aged voters wrapped around their fingers on class warfare politics and the youth was becoming radicalized in the schools by the "new" wave of socialist/marxist ideas in the 60s and 70s.

The basics of this "new" wave can be found in early socialist and even social democratic thought as they were derived from the marxist idea of the capitalist, bourgeois, Christian civilization built around God, King and country as being rotten to the core and built upon a structure of tyranny that needed to be deconstruced and erased.

This is how they fooled the voters and this is why the issue of women voters vs male voters is irrelevant in this big scam that we call democracy.

Waldstein
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 03:00 PM
One could argue that women exert their power in a more subtle, indirect manner (i.e. by influencing the opinion of their men) than by voting and public display of their opinion and that this power is of a considerable amount. It has been justly said that behind every "strong" man is a strong (or even stronger) woman. So, women have always been powerful, with or without voting rights.

Wolgadeutscher
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 03:50 PM
Denying women the right to vote or to state their views is an un-Germanic attitude, an attitude some people have brought to our lands from the deserts of Near-/ and Middle-East and their respective religions. Either we fight and vote together as Germanic men and women or we can refrain from any fighting for our cultural and erthnic preservation at all.
How do you explain it then that women were not allowed to attend the Thing (assembly), in pre-Christian Germanic societies (which I suppose are the definition of Germanic to Pagans around here)?

A woman's place has always been in the hearth and home, not in the political scene, until the feminists started screaming for equal rights.

celticruine
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 04:58 PM
How do you explain it then that women were not allowed to attend the Thing (assembly), in pre-Christian Germanic societies (which I suppose are the definition of Germanic to Pagans around here)?

A woman's place has always been in the hearth and home, not in the political scene, until the feminists started screaming for equal rights.

This Vote question wasn´t since the feminists claim for their rights.
Maybe you´re living out of date.
It was since 1900.
If you understand German then look this page.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenwahlrecht#Das_Frauenwahlrecht_in_E uropa

Bittereinder
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 05:10 PM
If democracy is used they should be allowed, though I am not particularly democratically inclined...

celticruine
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 05:18 PM
And what´s with non democrazy ?
Should they also have no Chance to vote ?

Bittereinder
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 05:37 PM
And what´s with non democrazy ?
Should they also have no Chance to vote ?

Celticruine could you please clarify these questions?

celticruine
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 05:43 PM
In nationalsocialism should women get the Chance to vote ?

Bittereinder
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009, 05:50 PM
In nationalsocialism should they get the Chance to vote ?

Once Nationalsocialism has secured the future of the people, yes. I must ad that IMO voting under Nationalsocialism is obsolete whilst the Folk’s future has not been secured, while internal and external threats to the Folk are present at best one could have referendums to pole the Folk’s opinion but the state must take choices upon its self along with the accountability.

Thusnelda
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:23 AM
How do you explain it then that women were not allowed to attend the Thing (assembly), in pre-Christian Germanic societies (which I suppose are the definition of Germanic to Pagans around here)?
Well, I´ve never said that women were treated absolutely equal to men in ancient Germanic, pre-Christian times, but if you compare the situation with the conditions in regions of Christianity or other monotheistical religions you´ll see that Germanic women were quite emancipated (not in the liberal 68ies sense of today). And men accepted it.


A woman's place has always been in the hearth and home, not in the political scene, until the feminists started screaming for equal rights.
The best adviser of a man is his wife. ;)

Wolgadeutscher
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:44 AM
Well, I´ve never said that women were treated absolutely equal to men in ancient Germanic, pre-Christian times, but if you compare the situation with the conditions in regions of Christianity or other monotheistical religions you´ll see that Germanic women were quite emancipated (not in the liberal 68ies sense of today). And men accepted it.
Do you want to go back on your words? You said denying women the right to vote is "ungermanic" and brought from the Near and Middle East:


Denying women the right to vote or to state their views is an un-Germanic attitude, an attitude some people have brought to our lands from the deserts of Near-/ and Middle-East and their respective religions.

What is the definition of Germanic? Were the pre-Christian societies Germanic? If they were, then denying women the right to vote is very much a Germanic thing and existed before the evil desert religions came and conquered you.


The best adviser of a man is his wife. ;)
Not in terms of politics.

Why do feminist websites have to list famous women in history and such? Are there famous men in history websites? The majority of influential political figures were male. Females were the exception.

SpearBrave
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:50 AM
I believe women should vote mainly because men and women are equal in most aspects of thought. Sure you could argue the physical differences and that is not the same.

Even if a women is a stay at home housewife(hearth tender) she should still have a voice in what is going on in the world around her. For a man to suppress a woman even in a traditional household is very backward. If the man loves a woman he respects her and her choices.

A man can still be the leader of his household and respect the right for his woman to vote and have her voice heard. I know this for fact because I have been living that way for 10 years and would not have it any other way.

Wolgadeutscher
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:54 AM
I believe women should vote mainly because men and women are equal in most aspects of thought. Sure you could argue the physical differences and that is not the same.
That is false. The organ responsible for the aspects of thought, the brain, is not the same in males and females.


There really are big differences between the male and female brain, says Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University. In his new book, the Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain (published by Penguin) Baron-Cohen shows that, indisputably, on average male and female minds are of a slightly different character. Men tend to be better at analysing systems (better systemisers), while women tend to be better at reading the emotions of other people (better empathisers). Baron-Cohen shows that this distinction arises from biology, not culture.

http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html

Women being better empathisers perfectly explains why since women were granted the right to vote, immigrants, sexual deviants and other degenerates became normal parts of society and received support. Women will feel sorry for just anyone. They act based on feelings, not reason.

SpearBrave
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 11:12 AM
That is false. The organ responsible for the aspects of thought, the brain, is not the same in males and females.



http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html

Women being better empathisers perfectly explains why since women were granted the right to vote, immigrants, sexual deviants and other degenerates became normal parts of society and received support. Women will feel sorry for just anyone. They act based on feelings, not reason.

Actually it takes both thought processes to be a good leader.

I always believed the Jew was responsible for immigrants,sexual deviants and other degenerates not our own women.

You state that women fell sorry for just anyone. Than you have never met my woman or my mother. They would rip you apart as soon as they would feel sorry for anyone. I would even say that for a lot of women I have met in my life.

Bittereinder
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Women being better empathisers perfectly explains why since women were granted the right to vote, immigrants, sexual deviants and other degenerates became normal parts of society and received support. Women will feel sorry for just anyone. They act based on feelings, not reason.

I think Todesengel & Velvet qualifies as female's who would strongly disprove this point. ;)

velvet
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 12:02 PM
What is the definition of Germanic? Were the pre-Christian societies Germanic? If they were, then denying women the right to vote is very much a Germanic thing and existed before the evil desert religions came and conquered you.

The Thing sometimes were even led by women, they often were priests. The priest role in ancient Germanic societies was originally also the bearer of laws. This only changed under christian influence, when both parts of this position were splitted apart.

Who was allowed to attend the Thing from the people was defined by their rank, not their gender. The thralls, men and women, were generally bared from that.


Not in terms of politics.

It is just stupid to exclude the half of your people from politics, when this half is the very basic of your society, defines the family, defines the community, defines the values, as they are the ones who raise the children.


Why do feminist websites have to list famous women in history and such? Are there famous men in history websites? The majority of influential political figures were male. Females were the exception.

Our history is written first by the Romans, the victors, and later by christians, the victors. And you cant take a late reality of history as proof for the pre christian times.
We know that there have been women as queens, do you really think these women were bared from the Thing, or bared from political decisions, when they were the leaders of their folk? Nonsense. Women were worth the same as men.

Gender roles, defined by biology, dont have anything to do with the qualities of people.

Unfortunately, many men still think in christian terms and dont see women as human, and who must be held under full control and then call this 'tradition'.
You even try to prove that with pseudo scientific blabbering, from a Jew (? father Michael Greenblatt, Cohen is anyway a jewish name, can someone confirm?). And we know how keen Jews are to keep up that 'tradition' and destroy the fabrics of our society and folk.

Jäger
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 12:20 PM
I believe women should vote mainly because men and women are equal in most aspects of thought.
What philosophical piece written by a woman are you thinking about?

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 01:25 PM
My first instinct is that intelligent Germanic nationalist women should certainly not be prohibited from voting, but that is self-indulgent of me, because I think we would all want such peoples' views to be heard. It is the much larger percentage of women who are not like this that I'm worried about.

I prefer to look at things empirically. Women have had the vote in Western nations for almost 100 years, and what has been the result? Politicians who prey upon sympathetic feelings for the "poor and disadvantaged" that women, more than men, allow themselves to be guided by, which of course has fueled negro advancement and immigration. It has also been accompanied by the gradual feminization of men over that period.

The evidence:

Man before women were given the vote:

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/70/Friedrich_III_as_Kronprinz_-_in_GdK_uniform_by_Heinrich_von_Angeli_1 874.jpg

"Man" after women were given the vote:

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll167/emokissesemolove/EmoBoy27.jpg?t=1257425467

This may, of course, simply be coincidence, but the advancement of women in general has, I believe, atrophied the development of boys into men to varying degrees. Women don't need to be taken care of and protected any more (at least many don't think they do,) so there is less need for men to step up to the plate and try. Affirmative action hiring practices have also harmed the position of men in society to the point that many who would desire to take care of a woman cannot, because of such discriminatory practices. And another thing, it is natural for men to be attracted to women with inner strength, yet it is these same women who have been taught to pursue a career and delay or sweep aside the notion of creating a home and having children. The women's movement has simply destroyed society.

Suffrage should never be universal. I would say that men over 25 who have done their national service should be eligible to vote, if they show the proper aptitude for caring about the nation and the folk. Though our women here are exceptional, exceptions cannot be allowed to make the rule. Women are too easily manipulated by propaganda which targets their compassionate side, and worse yet, the powers that be have continually run candidates that are attractive Lotharios, like JFK and Bill Clinton, simply because women would be more likely to vote for them. I know our women here don't really fall into that category, but enough women do to make allowing them to vote a dangerous proposition.

VergesEngst
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 02:27 PM
[...]I prefer to look at things empirically. Women have had the vote in Western nations for almost 100 years, and what has been the result? [...] It has also been accompanied by the gradual feminization of men over that period. The evidence: (some pictures)

Sorry to get all "logic police" on you, but this is terrible evidence. You can cherry-pick any pictures you want to, and there are plenty of effeminate-looking portraits from almost any time-period you would want to name. Just as there are plenty of masculine-looking people around now.

One could debate all day whether culture is becoming "feminized", just as one could debate all day whether this is a good or a bad thing. But even if you think men are becoming feminized over time... picking two random pictures is not the way to "prove" it.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Sorry to get all "logic police" on you, but this is terrible evidence. You can cherry-pick any pictures you want to, and there are plenty of effeminate-looking portraits from almost any time-period you would want to name. Just as there are plenty of masculine-looking people around now.

One could debate all day whether culture is becoming "feminized", just as one could debate all day whether this is a good or a bad thing. But even if you think men are becoming feminized over time... picking two random pictures is not the way to "prove" it.

Well, the key is in social acceptance. The emo boy in the second picture is typical of a general style. Also, homosexuality has been "liberated." Put that emo boy in a small town in, oh, let's make it fair, the very liberal Netherlands circa 1871. The Dutch being the Dutch wouldn't have stoned him to death, but he would have suffered so much mirth and ridicule that he would probably cry wike a widdle baby before being kicked out of town. Nowadays those people are extremely common. One emo person does not an argument make, but there are thousands more like him, and you know this.

This may just be two people, but they are undeniably people of their time.

velvet
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Man before women were given the vote:

King Louise XIV:
http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/louis-xiv-lebrunl.jpg

http://www.changetowin.org/connect/images/300px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

Full of make up, feminine clothings, and decadent to the bones.

Voltaire:
http://www.ymca-coll.edu.hk/history/photo/chapter2/voltaire.jpg
Made-up, wearing a wig

Jeanne D'Ark:
http://img.webme.com/pic/g/gizliilimler/jeanne_d_arc.jpg

:P

And maybe you want to remember, the democratic revolutions were driven by MEN, as to that time indeed women were bared from all political activity. Marx and Engels, men, the people of the French revolution, all men, the people who throw over the monarchies, the Bosten Tea Party, etc.pp. all brought about by men in a time when women were bared from politics.

You cannot blame women for that.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Well, the odd prince or philosopher of the court could perhaps get away with that sort of thing, but you didn't see a large chunk of teenage boys doing that like you do now. There are many thousands of emos and openly gay people today, and the emos are certainly not all gay. There are a lot of twisted relationships with dominant women who honestly have no respect for their "emo" boyfriends, just because they are spineless and unmanly.

Furthermore, nowadays if you try to apply societal pressure to reform one of these freaks you are tossed in jail for a hate crime.

VergesEngst
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Well, the odd prince or philosopher of the court could perhaps get away with that sort of thing, but you didn't see a large chunk of teenage boys doing that [...]

I don't mean to be a pain, but I don't think you're right about this. It was very common in the 17th century: tights, wigs, and full make-up were the style of the time. The guys who didn't do it often were the ones who couldn't afford to do it.


There are many thousands of emos and openly gay people today, and the emos are certainly not all gay. There are a lot of twisted relationships with dominant women who honestly have no respect for their "emo" boyfriends, just because they are spineless and unmanly.

Just to drag things back on topic a little bit: regardless of one's opinions of gayness or effeminacy in men, I don't think it's related to women getting the right to vote. I think if you were to take a poll of those men who think women should have the right to vote, you wouldn't find that it is because "women should be manly and vice versa". I think you would find that the reason is because they think women can make competent decisions.

The notion that "many women are incompetent" falls apart (as an argument against women voting) when you realize that the same is true of men. Most of them are incompetent. This isn't an argument against women voting; it's an argument against voting. ;)

Patrioten
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:55 PM
Well, the odd prince or philosopher of the court could perhaps get away with that sort of thing, but you didn't see a large chunk of teenage boys doing that like you do now. There are many thousands of emos and openly gay people today, and the emos are certainly not all gay. There are a lot of twisted relationships with dominant women who honestly have no respect for their "emo" boyfriends, just because they are spineless and unmanly.

Furthermore, nowadays if you try to apply societal pressure to reform one of these freaks you are tossed in jail for a hate crime.The political successes of the left were inevitable once general suffrage laws for men were passed, it didn't need the women to get into a position of power, and the roots, or blue prints, of the societal ills that plauge us today can be found in the ideological roots of the left, for which a very large portion of the men gave their support (why they did this is covered in my earlier post).

The electoral system, as it was set up, made it possible for the left to use their electoral successes on certain issues to enforce their agenda on all areas of society. Class warfare politics coupled with democratic naivity, a faith in the responsible and deliberate nature of the average voter, and a system which was seriously defect in making sure that demos, not new forms of elites shaped the policies of the state, opened the doors for radicalism.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 03:58 PM
I don't mean to be a pain, but I don't think you're right about this. It was very common in the 17th century: tights, wigs, and full make-up were the style of the time. The guys who didn't do it often were the ones who couldn't afford to do it.

Well, be that as it may, it was a style of dress, not of behavior. The emo thing is both. Loius XIV, for example, was not particularly effeminate, despite the wigs and such. He was actually extremely ruthless. Neither would I call Franklin or Washington effeminate.


Just to drag things back on topic a little bit: regardless of one's opinions of gayness or effeminacy in men, I don't think it's related to women getting the right to vote. I think if you were to take a poll of those men who think women should have the right to vote, you wouldn't find that it is because "women should be manly and vice versa". I think you would find that the reason is because they think women can make competent decisions.

The notion that "many women are incompetent" falls apart (as an argument against women voting) when you realize that the same is true of men. Most of them are incompetent. This isn't an argument against women voting; it's an argument against voting. ;)

I don't really think women are incompetent in general, but their priorities are often different from men's, and over time, society as a whole will naturally become more effeminate. You see grown men in their 60s now worrying more about hurting the feelings of some deviant or foreigner than doing what is right to preserve a functioning society built around our own culture. That's the main gist of what I am saying here. There's certainly no way to really prove this quantitatively, but we here all see it happening.


The political successes of the left were inevitable once general suffrage laws for men were passed, it didn't need the women to get into a position of power, and the roots, or blue prints, of the societal ills that plauge us today can be found in the ideological roots of the left, for which a very large portion of the men gave their support (why they did this is covered in my earlier post).

The electoral system, as it was set up, made it possible for the left to use their electoral successes on certain issues to enforce their agenda on all areas of society. Class warfare politics coupled with democratic naivity, a faith in the responsible and deliberate nature of the average voter, and a system which was seriously defect in making sure that demos, not new forms of elites shaped the policies of the state, opened the doors for radicalism.

Well, it's quite true that the foolish are easily duped no matter what their sex, and that is only the beginnings of the sort of foul play we have had with "democracy."

Patrioten
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 04:06 PM
Well, it's quite true that the foolish are easily duped no matter what their sex, and that is only the beginnings of the sort of foul play we have had with "democracy."So why are women voters to blame for the emo in your picture?

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 04:13 PM
So why are women voters to blame for the emo in your picture?


I don't really think women are incompetent in general, but their priorities are often different from men's, and over time, society as a whole will naturally become more effeminate. You see grown men in their 60s now worrying more about hurting the feelings of some deviant or foreigner than doing what is right to preserve a functioning society built around our own culture. That's the main gist of what I am saying here. There's certainly no way to really prove this quantitatively, but we here all see it happening.

Power is influence, and the more feminine priorities take precedence, the more feminized men will become in their attempt to conform. Also, the more power women get, the more men lose, and the more men will seek to regain that power subconsciously, by acting like women.

velvet
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Well, be that as it may, it was a style of dress, not of behavior. The emo thing is both. Loius XIV, for example, was not particularly effeminate, despite the wigs and such. He was actually extremely ruthless.

This was a time of absolute decadence, this so-called 'elite' had absolutely no values whatsoever, not marriage, not family, not life, not culture, it was all about who could get the most sex. And actually they didnt care much about the gender of their sex partner either.
Yes, Louise was a cruel guy, but Marie Antoinette wasnt any less cruel. Remember? "When the people dont have bread, they shall eat cakes".


I don't really think women are incompetent in general, but their priorities are often different from men's, and over time, society as a whole will naturally become more effeminate. You see grown men in their 60s now worrying more about hurting the feelings of some deviant or foreigner than doing what is right to preserve a functioning society built around our own culture. That's the main gist of what I am saying here. There's certainly no way to really prove this quantitatively, but we here all see it happening.

Do you really want to blame women for that?
I mean, honestly, your country is runned by Jews and reprensented right now by an illegal muslim immigrant, the Council of Foreign Relation, Bilderberg and the ADL have more of a say about your policies than you have, each halfway successfull business defines more of the policies than you could ever dream about. And these very same people define European policy as well.
The common 60 year old, man or woman, is not aware of the 24/7 brainwash machinery, that tells him or her round around the clock that he/she has to love everything foreign and that when he/she thinks first about his/her own kind that he/she is an evil racist. This is true for every age group anyway and it affects women as well as men.

These policies and agendas are made by men, not women.
Instead of pointlessly blaming women, gays, emos or whatever group to bash you chose, you should better start bashing the people who are really responsible for this.

And btw, making homosexuality a crime, as the Italian plan right now, will neither remove homosexuality nor will it solve any of the real problems we have. You just end up, once again, with criminalising your own people. What about some concentration camps for gays? And emos, and hiphopper, punks, skindheads, power metallers, popper, ItalianDisco lovers, liberals, republicans, generic conservatives, conservatives, libertarians, yoganouts, buddhists, tantraists, body builders, Dan Brown readers, Oprah Winfrey fans, you name it; and of course women.

This will not solve our real problems :nope

SpearBrave
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:24 PM
What philosophical piece written by a woman are you thinking about?

I think you know I was not making a comment on philosophical works, but I am sure they are out there.

I was commenting on the thoughts of everyday life like food,shelter,family. The most important bases for all of us no matter were you live or what you do.

The fact that people think women should not have a say is puzzling to me. I don't think I would want a woman that did not have her own thoughts and ideas and a way to express them.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 5th, 2009, 10:57 PM
Alright, then, I will retract and say I am not attempting to apportion blame. I think we should explore the cause and effect of these things though. Certainly our birth rates have been lowered because there are fewer and fewer men that good women would consider worthy. Do you think this is a fair assessment? If so, what would you do to boost this unnaturally lowered sense of maleness among men?

Bittereinder
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 08:02 AM
Certainly a portion of the blame can and should be attributed to the increased activity of females in the previously male dominated work environments but I think there is a further underling causes to this. One of the biggest hurdles facing us is the financial system, it has become necessary for most females to work so that the household can make enough money to acquire the basic requirements of human life today ie. Water, food, shelter, transport, communication etc. all these things we require today we are forced to acquire at a premium because our governments are more inclined to support jew owned enterprises that at the end of the day by connection artificially control the price and standard of living for the largest part of our people. Coupled with this, the cost of a raising a child exacerbates this situation even further. Then with the few Penny's our people are left with they are force fed sh1t which current society tells them they need, advertising is perpetuating the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ mentality that is further swallowing any excess income that might be available towards successfully rearing a child. The 'moral' onslaught leveled at our children in conjunction with the restraints placed upon the parents then further makes it highly unlikely to successfully rear a functioning Germanic child. Which in all deters our people of fulfilling the most important task/need biological beings have, namely procreation. We are living to survive not to thrive

As you motioned the male persona is not as it was two hundred or even a hundred years ago. The increased hostility leveled at males as the aggressors in every contentions occurrence in history has been exploited by the NWO as a measure to demean the male sex to the point where docility on the males part has reached the point where resistance from where it should originate has been all but neutralized, so to speak.

Fortress Germania has posted two must read articles on this subject in this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=129287) which IMO outlines the majority of problems facing Germanics as a whole.

The multi pronged attack used to commit Germanic genocide has so many facets that the only way we would be truly able to reverse the damage done would be to abolish the entire system of control over our lives, this is what Nationasocialism is intended to achieve as ideology, government, social standard and nurturer of the folk. It is no secret that WWII resulted from NSDAP Germany wanting to leave the monetary system, as they strived to make labour the basic building block of their currency. This would result in woman not having to work surely they should be able to work but when the maternal instincts switches on they would/should be able to leave their work and focus on rearing the future of the folk, which in itself is the most important task that a Germanic family can perform…

To even start reversing the damage already done, each Germanic Family would need to rear three plus children, anything less and we will continue to dwindle.

The feminazis obviously latched on to this situation but for the most Germanic females this is not the case, the social climate is responsible for this IMO and if things would return to what it should be less and less females would become feminazis as the things society values like a flashy car, a big house, Armani this Gucci that will all become obsolete because it would not be perpetuated in our moral dealing with one another, we will value family, a father, a mother etc. and in the end we would not only able to ensure our continued existence but we would be able to thrive…

Rozenstorm
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:13 AM
King Louise XIV:
http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/louis-xiv-lebrunl.jpg

http://www.changetowin.org/connect/images/300px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

Full of make up, feminine clothings, and decadent to the bones.

Voltaire:
http://www.ymca-coll.edu.hk/history/photo/chapter2/voltaire.jpg
Made-up, wearing a wig

Jeanne D'Ark:
http://img.webme.com/pic/g/gizliilimler/jeanne_d_arc.jpg

:P

And maybe you want to remember, the democratic revolutions were driven by MEN, as to that time indeed women were bared from all political activity. Marx and Engels, men, the people of the French revolution, all men, the people who throw over the monarchies, the Bosten Tea Party, etc.pp. all brought about by men in a time when women were bared from politics.

You cannot blame women for that.

The question now bids itself into the light. Are liberals men?

:devil


This Vote question wasn´t since the feminists claim for their rights.
Maybe you´re living out of date.
It was since 1900.
If you understand German then look this page.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenwahlrecht#Das_Frauenwahlrecht_in_E uropa


Feminism didn't start in 1968. It just got an enormous boost.


I think you know I was not making a comment on philosophical works, but I am sure they are out there.

I was commenting on the thoughts of everyday life like food,shelter,family. The most important bases for all of us no matter were you live or what you do.

The fact that people think women should not have a say is puzzling to me. I don't think I would want a woman that did not have her own thoughts and ideas and a way to express them.

Sure there out there? At the very best, there is one, maybe two works that are from a feminine author and influential. The fact is that women might have the same IQ-average as men, they do not have the same amount of outliers that we have. We have more morons and retards, but we have more geniuses as well. The chance of finding a female Einstein for example is 300 times as small as finding a male one...

Of course, this has fairly little to do with voting, since voting in a nowadays concept is a brainless concept. It shouldn't be unconditional. With power has to come responsibility, but voters hold none.

SpearBrave
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Sure there out there? At the very best, there is one, maybe two works that are from a feminine author and influential. The fact is that women might have the same IQ-average as men, they do not have the same amount of outliers that we have. We have more morons and retards, but we have more geniuses as well. The chance of finding a female Einstein for example is 300 times as small as finding a male one...

Of course, this has fairly little to do with voting, since voting in a nowadays concept is a brainless concept. It shouldn't be unconditional. With power has to come responsibility, but voters hold none.

So you are saying women are more in the middle and not so extreme.

Of course this has to do with women voting. I never said it should be unconditional just equal between man and woman. Keep believing your vote holds no power that's how we lost the power of voting.

Rozenstorm
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 12:07 PM
The power of voting is lost because of the fact that everybody can vote. :D

velvet
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 12:18 PM
The question now bids itself into the light. Are liberals men?

Yes, and the women, the last resort of of patriot thinking to that time, were asked to save the country. :P
Who rebuilt Germany after WWII? Men? No, it were women. And as reward they got a ridiculous small retirement payment. They raised children without fathers, they rebuilt the cities and houses, they rebuilt the structure. And when everything was okay again, men came and demanded 'rulership' back, which they didnt deserve in the first place.



Feminism

Feminism is a counterreaction to absolute stupidity made by men who call that 'tradition'.

And as the most counterreactions, it is exaggerated. It will calm down when it has become normal again (provided we get rid at some point of the jewish feminazies who push that to ever more extremes)


Sure there out there? At the very best, there is one, maybe two works that are from a feminine author and influential. The fact is that women might have the same IQ-average as men, they do not have the same amount of outliers that we have. We have more morons and retards, but we have more geniuses as well. The chance of finding a female Einstein for example is 300 times as small as finding a male one...

Einstein was a stealer of ideas, he was just a good entertainer who sold the ideas to the masses and the leaders.
And although women were, to his time, still largely bared from academical positions, it was Marie Curie who splitted the atom and did all the mathematical work.

And talking about responsibility, she realised the inherent dangers this technique holds and wanted to destroy her work, for that it cannot be abused.
Of course, stupid men who thought they could handle it used it nonetheless and built... ah right, a bomb.

Such examples exist several times, and should be proof that men are not able to handle power given to them with responsibility.
Men managed to destroy the societal fabric of our people countless times, without women we would long be wiped from the history books, because women have been the ones who rebuilt from the mess men left.

And, btw, you cant take a generated reality of recent centuries, with men taking all the power and bared women from schools and universities, with men taking women's works not seriously and therefore noone published them (a counterexample would be Madame Blavatsky, who wrote despite the lack of granted education important philosophical works of which many ideas can be also found in nationalsocialism, the 'fame' though went 'of course' to Steiner) etc as 'proof' that women cannot be 'geniuses'.

It was a reality generated by men, and therefore does not constitute any proof for a lack of ability in women.

Thusnelda
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 03:06 PM
What philosophical piece written by a woman are you thinking about?
Who needs male philosophers when we have Mary Shelley!? :P

http://www.stanford.edu/~evans/LitLondon/LondonImages/mary_shelley_author_frankenstein.jpg

Her "Frankenstein" can be seen from a highly philosophical perspective as well. And while most male philosophers were writing quite boring stuff Mary Shelley combined philosophical thoughts with entertainment and horror. ;) (Don´t take me dead serious here, I just want to break the indurated fronts)

Jäger
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 03:50 PM
Her "Frankenstein" can be seen from a highly philosophical perspective as well.
It has "interesting" philosophical ideas (while also being degenerate, as it is in the tradition "enlightenment") which are never fully explored though. (And it is boring :P)

A female philosophical piece which is actually quite interesting to read is Lou Andreas-Salomé: Die Erotik (http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Erotik)
However, using her as an example of identical capability of thought in men and women would be quite misplaced, you may want to at least skim over the foreword :D
A highly intelligent woman she was. :)

Quo vadis
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Who rebuilt Germany after WWII? Men? No, it were women. And as reward they got a ridiculous small retirement payment. They raised children without fathers, they rebuilt the cities and houses, they rebuilt the structure. And when everything was okay again, men came and demanded 'rulership' back, which they didnt deserve in the first place.

It is very insulting of you to deny the achievement of German men in rebuilding Germany after WW2 in order to claim it for your group, women, whom you apparently cannot imagine other than in an antagonistic role to men. You probably refer to the Trümmerfrauen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trümmerfrauen). They did not rebuild cities and houses after WWII, though, they only cleared the debris away. You are spreading a feminist lie here. Unlike later generations, this generation of women were not feminists, they lived up to their gender role and they had enough children, even though some of them had to raise them without fathers. And today feminists like you use their achievements for dishonouring German men and destroying the people. :thumbdown


Feminism is a counterreaction to absolute stupidity made by men who call that 'tradition'.

And as the most counterreactions, it is exaggerated. It will calm down when it has become normal again (provided we get rid at some point of the jewish feminazies who push that to ever more extremes)

Provided that we survive long enough, because feminism is destroying our people very quickly and very thoroughly now. German men fought bravely in the war, later they rebuilt Germany into becoming a great economic power again, but when confronted with this extreme unreasonable hatred by women, they are just helpless because they are unprepared having to fight a war at that front, too. I noticed in my generation how many men are at a loss figuring out what women expect of them and fail to prepare themselves for the role of a breadwinner for a family, like past generations did. In reaction, German women scorn German men even more and their feminist pretensions reach ever new heights.

There is no point arguing against it: It is true that women can do the same jobs men can do and that they can provide financially for their own. It is true, as my sister ceaselessly rubbed into my face, that women need men just as much as a fish needs a bicycle. It is also true that women don't need men even for their sexual satisfaction and that, as my sister said, "Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the practice". It is women who give birth to the children, who raise them most of the time, even do the household chores on top of all that, they are simply superior human beings, while men are at best useless, at worst they are just scum. Personally, I gave up long ago. :(

velvet
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 10:18 PM
It is very insulting of you to deny the achievement of German men in rebuilding Germany after WW2 in order to claim it for your group, women, whom you apparently cannot imagine other than in an antagonistic role to men. You probably refer to the Trümmerfrauen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trümmerfrauen). They did not rebuild cities and houses after WWII, though, they only cleared the debris away. You are spreading a feminist lie here. Unlike later generations, this generation of women were not feminists, they lived up to their gender role and they had enough children, even though some of them had to raise them without fathers. And today feminists like you use their achievements for dishonouring German men and destroying the people.

So, now I'm a people destroying feminist, for pointing out the other side of men claiming we are responsible, alone and totally, for liberalism, when at that time when liberalism was brought about women were bared from political power, hence could not bring about anything?
Well, thanks, I take great offence in being called a feminist. :thumbdown

Of course, this general accusation went totally unnoticed. Women are responsible for liberalism, gay pride parades, churches blessing gay marriage (within the catholic church no woman is in power or has any influence, so impossible, but still we are at fault), we are at fault for emo kids and what not all.


Provided that we survive long enough, because feminism is destroying our people very quickly and very thoroughly now. German men fought bravely in the war, later they rebuilt Germany into becoming a great economic power again, but when confronted with this extreme unreasonable hatred by women, they are just helpless because they are unprepared having to fight a war at that front, too. I noticed in my generation how many men are at a loss figuring out what women expect of them and fail to prepare themselves for the role of a breadwinner for a family, like past generations did. In reaction, German women scorn German men even more and their feminist pretensions reach ever new heights.

Of course, we are responsible for men's little ego problems too.

You want a women who lives up to her gender role? Fine, what happens to women who actually do live of the pocketbook of their men? Right, they get accused of making themselves a nice and easy life on the expense of her husband.

Talking about being at loss what the other expects. It's in no way easier for women to figure out what men want as it is for men.

A solution maybe could be an eye-to-eye conversation.


There is no point arguing against it: It is true that women can do the same jobs men can do and that they can provide financially for their own. It is true, as my sister ceaselessly rubbed into my face, that women need men just as much as a fish needs a bicycle. It is also true that women don't need men even for their sexual satisfaction and that, as my sister said, "Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the practice". It is women who give birth to the children, who raise them most of the time, even do the household chores on top of all that, they are simply superior human beings, while men are at best useless, at worst they are just scum. Personally, I gave up long ago. :(

So, when you see women as 'superior beings', are you against women having the right to vote? And if, how can you possibly justify that?

You see, I just think that none is superior to the other, they are equally important for a working society. I dont believe that 'gender roles' have anything to do with 'rights'.
This is what the thread is about, whether women should have the right to vote or not.

When you constitute different rights for genders, and want women to be bared from politics, which at large define the field women are generally alone responsible for, the family and child rearing (not least via the greater definition of society by policies), then you either dont think that women are superior beings and therefore need total guidance, or, and this I think is more likely reading your post, you feel inferior to women and need a control instrument over them to keep them down, because you're afraid that women could start to think men were superfluous.

They made themselves to a certain degree superfluous, many of the men in the 'good old conservative' times said, they have nothing to do with child rearing, it's not their business at all and if they could effort it, even sent their children to expensive boarding schools to have them raised and educated by other people. With that of course taking away also the main 'purpose' for their wives and degraded them to a cheap housekeeper, who had the 'plus' of serving the men sexually (so called matrimonial duties).
Is it that what you want?


Why can you men not learn to not try to take away rights from the women and just see as them equal? What would be so hurting about that? What makes you think that genders should define rights within the society, or basic human rights? Or why do you think equal rights damage the gender roles?

I agree that the current status of our societies is a spiral downward, but instead of creating artifical 'antagonistic concepts' we better learn to attack the real enemy, those who design all these detrimental policies: Jews. And in the end it is all the same, liberalism, conservatism, marxism, you name it. Designed political concepts which are all detrimental to our people, because none of them is designed by ourselves, but since more than hundred years by the jewish oligarchs. When you subscribe to such a concept, you become an antagony in yourself. You give up for the sake of the concept things you once believed in, but that doesnt fit into the concept.

The game is called devide and conquer, and these concepts are designed to devide and to make us oversee the real enemy. I dont care about concepts and drawers, and when you want to call me a 'people destroying feminist' because I believe that men and women are equal, despite their gender roles, then so be it. When you want to play their game, fine. But such pointless devisions are the reason why there doesnt exist a 'movement'.

We better start working together, men and women, against the destroying policies.

Jäger
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Fine, what happens to women who actually do live of the pocketbook of their men? Right, they get accused of making themselves a nice and easy life on the expense of her husband.
And yet you pride freedom of speech as something entirely constructive. :|

Wolgadeutscher
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:27 PM
Actually it takes both thought processes to be a good leader.

I always believed the Jew was responsible for immigrants,sexual deviants and other degenerates not our own women.

You state that women fell sorry for just anyone. Than you have never met my woman or my mother. They would rip you apart as soon as they would feel sorry for anyone. I would even say that for a lot of women I have met in my life.
Who gave power and influence to the Jew? Is it a coincidence that everything became more and more decadent after voting became more inclusive? Some of the first feminists were Jewish women, and our women fell for their propaganda.


I think Todesengel & Velvet qualifies as female's who would strongly disprove this point. ;)
Most women on Skadi have tolerant views, including of some of the most disgusting and untraditional things ever seen.


The Thing sometimes were even led by women, they often were priests. The priest role in ancient Germanic societies was originally also the bearer of laws. This only changed under christian influence, when both parts of this position were splitted apart.

Who was allowed to attend the Thing from the people was defined by their rank, not their gender. The thralls, men and women, were generally bared from that.
Post a source where it says women lead the Thing.


It is just stupid to exclude the half of your people from politics, when this half is the very basic of your society, defines the family, defines the community, defines the values, as they are the ones who raise the children.
It's not stupid. It's common sense. Most of our history lacks liberal democracy, where everyone has a say just because he exists. The fate of the country was established by men who were familiar with the art of politics and war, not ignorant citisens.


Our history is written first by the Romans, the victors, and later by christians, the victors. And you cant take a late reality of history as proof for the pre christian times.
We know that there have been women as queens, do you really think these women were bared from the Thing, or bared from political decisions, when they were the leaders of their folk? Nonsense. Women were worth the same as men.
Like I said, post proof.


Gender roles, defined by biology, dont have anything to do with the qualities of people.
They do.


Unfortunately, many men still think in christian terms and dont see women as human, and who must be held under full control and then call this 'tradition'.
You are human, but not all humans are equal. Nature comes with superiority and inferiority. You are inferior when it comes to politics.


You even try to prove that with pseudo scientific blabbering, from a Jew (? father Michael Greenblatt, Cohen is anyway a jewish name, can someone confirm?). And we know how keen Jews are to keep up that 'tradition' and destroy the fabrics of our society and folk.
Search Google for male and female brain differences and you'll find the same conclusion reached by different scientists, without 'funny' names.

Women are by nature more egotist than men. When the question whether women should vote comes up, few women think logically about it. Most women think 'if women can't vote, it means I can't vote either, and I don't want to be excluded'. That is how they judge the question. Men instead would be willing to restrict voting and even disallow most of their gender to vote, including themselves if they don't qualify.

Rightpath
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Wolgadeutscher, I find your view on this Interesting, what would be your perfect voting system?

velvet
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Who gave power and influence to the Jew?

Now you want to accuse women of giving power to Jews?!? :thumbdown


Post a source where it says women lead the Thing.

Read Wolfgang Golther.


It's not stupid. It's common sense. Most of our history lacks liberal democracy, where everyone has a say just because he exists. The fate of the country was established by men who were familiar with the art of politics and war, not ignorant citisens.

So, seeing women as inferior is common sense?

Btw, most of history didnt include stupid jewish religions either. All that bs that people spouse here as 'tradition' is jewish poison.


Like I said, post proof.

Read the sagas.


They do.

No, they dont. But jewish propaganda nonsense disguised as the only true belief does think so.


You are human, but not all humans are equal. Nature comes with superiority and inferiority. You are inferior when it comes to politics.

Because I'm a women?!?
Most men I came to know in my life shouldnt be allowed to vote either. Stupidity is not limited to women.


Search Google for male and female brain differences and you'll find the same conclusion reached by different scientists, without 'funny' names.

Yeah, right, one of the hordes of successfully indoctrinated scientists who gets published.

Yes, I agree that men and women think different, but this 'difference' is meant to form a whole, it is not meant to devide the people into master and slave (and this is what you really want) and then expect this master slave relation to be the basic of a healthy society.



Women are by nature more egotist than men. When the question whether women should vote comes up, few women think logically about it. Most women think 'if women can't vote, it means I can't vote either, and I don't want to be excluded'. That is how they judge the question. Men instead would be willing to restrict voting and even disallow most of their gender to vote, including themselves if they don't qualify.

Ah, I think you're by nature superior? Spoils your entire statement above.

Talking about logics. When a women proves to be worthy of politics, while you agree that voting should be restricted to however defined 'worthy' people, would you still bar her because she is a woman?

And on what criteria would you define worthy? And when you're just on it, explain why that criteria can never, under no circumstance, apply to women based on her nature, despite her intelligence and worthy political thought.

Bleyer
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 12:12 AM
Talking about logics. When a women proves to be worthy of politics, while you agree that voting should be restricted to however defined 'worthy' people, would you still bar her because she is a woman?
Giving people rights is based on generalisations. Wolgadeutscher is right about something. Women politicians have been the exception, let alone successful ones who did the right thing for their nation. Perhaps allowing women to candidate could be allowed, since there is a selection and one doesn't let just any woman arrive to that position. As for voting, unless there is some sort of exclusive system introduced to ensure only the most competent of them are allowed to cast their vote, it is safer to exclude them in mass.

celticruine
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 12:21 AM
I don´t really like the actual woman President.
But that´s two things if we speak about that women vote or vote a woman president.
Wolgadeutscher is perhaps right about some cases but not for this Century...

velvet
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:48 PM
Giving people rights is based on generalisations. Wolgadeutscher is right about something. Women politicians have been the exception, let alone successful ones who did the right thing for their nation. Perhaps allowing women to candidate could be allowed, since there is a selection and one doesn't let just any woman arrive to that position. As for voting, unless there is some sort of exclusive system introduced to ensure only the most competent of them are allowed to cast their vote, it is safer to exclude them in mass.

Where does this exception originate? It originates in that men bared women from these positions. So, you take an artficial generated and enforced reality as proof for a general inability of women, when they didnt really had the chance to prove themselves worthy.

And again I point to Jeanne D'Ark, she, a weak, oh so soft women, was the one who lead the army against the enemies of her country, when all the 'cool' and tough generals failed to do so.

When you're talking about a competence system, I suggest baring men en masse from voting too. Most of men are leftist scum, who gave Jews influential positions and the most fatal error was to allow them to run banks and control the entire money system. This was given by men to Jewish men, doesnt really prove men are able to make sound decisions. Men created marxism and spread that throughout Europe and America, men create stupid immigrant policies, and men tell the people that these immigrants are needed within our economies. And the funny thing about that is, that these men are to a large extent (generic) conservatives. And many of these conservatives are eager to side with muslims for their super-duper 'morals'.

Even though there are some women, the vast majority of politicians is still male, mostly women are put on family policy positions, inner politics who have in general no say regarding the overall outer and economical policies.

I suggest we should bar christians from voting and making politics. They tend to feel sorry for the poor third world immigrants and give them church asylum to prevent national policies from affecting them and cannot be sent back to where they came. In addition, many christian priests are gay or produce children with their housekeeper for that the church then pays. In addition, conservatives should be bared from political positions to prevent that they are able to push more sharia law into our law systems. They have already done that.

It is these groups of people, mainly men, who create the most detrimental policies against their own people. When we talk about restrictions on voting and political positions, this must be viewed not on genders, but on what these peoples / groups of peoples actually think and do.

Nachtengel
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Giving people rights is based on generalisations. Wolgadeutscher is right about something. Women politicians have been the exception, let alone successful ones who did the right thing for their nation. Perhaps allowing women to candidate could be allowed, since there is a selection and one doesn't let just any woman arrive to that position. As for voting, unless there is some sort of exclusive system introduced to ensure only the most competent of them are allowed to cast their vote, it is safer to exclude them in mass.
What about excluding men in mass? Where is the selection criterion for them? :confused

Sigurd
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Certainly, a huge problem about today's increased involvement of women in politics, also in representative functions is because this is done to full exclusion of men.

Powerful men knew that behind every strong man there is an equally strong woman to advise him. Women struggling for power today wish to do so pretty much entirely without men, there's often women standing behind them, what is lost is part of the necessary thought process.

Interesting enough in this is that women who are commonly considered big players on the scene - regardless of their political opinion - such as Margaret Thatcher or even Angela Merkel or even Hillary Clinton, have strong men to back them, both in the cabinet and privately.

This is what is forgotten: When men ruled, there was always a measure of female thinking involved, because every king would mention things in passing during bed-talk with the queen, every chieftain would mention things in passing during table-talk with his wife --- and she would perhaps give her opinion, which at least influenced his thinking even if he did not say so.

So the problem with many women seeking to be in power today is that they miss out on much of the great picture, this greater evil is due to the misunderstanding that women have actually historically always been involved in decision-making even if in the background, and thus that for women to succeed in making organic politics, they should at least have men in the background to advise them in that.

It's all a symbiosis of men and women, and that's what's forgotten today by many of those feminist politicians, and this is reflected directly in misguided voting behaviour, at least to a measurable extent. ;)

Hamar Fox
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 04:14 PM
The discussion essentially boils down to this: Everyone wants to restrict the electorate to people who agree with him/herself. Any loftier attempt to justify the disqualification from voting of a chunk of the population is nothing but verbiage.

I suppose the underlying misconception in this debate is that we actually have any genuine control of our fate. Voters aren't anywhere close to being in charge of the core policies of their leaders or changing the system. Therefore, whether only men vote or only women vote or both vote is at bottom irrelevant: things would be exactly the same either way, because our masters would present the electorate, however constituted, with the exact same limited and equally catastrophic alternatives.

Ensomheten
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Agreed.

Yet, so far as the majority of modern, spoiled, passive, dependent, metrosexual men do nothing of that sort, and are unable to support themselves let alone support their family, or stay at their parents house until their mid-30s

That’s mostly a southern-European thing. Not the norm here in northern Europe. I would guess the average age is around 20.

The essential question here is which women should have the right to vote. Loony lefties should be banned from planet Earth, aber schnell bitte. The rest could vote after some kind of test to show that they have a basic understanding of cause and effect. (I.e. multiculturalism equals social disintegration)

Rozenstorm
Monday, November 9th, 2009, 03:11 PM
And again I point to Jeanne D'Ark, she, a weak, oh so soft women, was the one who lead the army against the enemies of her country, when all the 'cool' and tough generals failed to do so.

God can even make women do incredible things. :D


What about excluding men in mass? Where is the selection criterion for them? :confused

As hard it is to admit, given the bad blood between us :p, it's a fair point. Like I already said, this topic title is a irrelevant one because a lot of men are unworthy of voting as well. Like I said it comes down to excessing power, power which should not go unaccounted for. People need to prove first that they hold the society's best interests first.

Wolgadeutscher
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009, 04:50 PM
Wolgadeutscher, I find your view on this Interesting, what would be your perfect voting system?
I think voting should be restricted. It should be exclusively for people who have done a great service to their country, like military men for defending it.


Now you want to accuse women of giving power to Jews?!? :thumbdown
Yes. Is it a coincidence that many feminists are Jews, and they are supported by women, for the sake of gender equality?


So, seeing women as inferior is common sense?
Inferior to men, yes. It is common sense alright. Study history. There is little else except childbirth (and what is connected to biology) that a man can't do and a woman can. The best of the men exceed by far the best of the women.


Because I'm a women?!?
Yes. Because you are a woman and you feel before you think. You are dominated by emotion. Your posts supporting perverted "liberties" like homosexuality are proof.


Most men I came to know in my life shouldnt be allowed to vote either. Stupidity is not limited to women.
Like I said, voting should be exclusive, not inclusive.


Yeah, right, one of the hordes of successfully indoctrinated scientists who gets published.
No.


Talking about logics. When a women proves to be worthy of politics, while you agree that voting should be restricted to however defined 'worthy' people, would you still bar her because she is a woman?
Yes. As Bleyer said, voting is a generalisation.


And on what criteria would you define worthy? And when you're just on it, explain why that criteria can never, under no circumstance, apply to women based on her nature, despite her intelligence and worthy political thought.
I have already explained. Emotionality. Thinking before feeling. Women have typically higher EQs than IQs.

velvet
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Yes. Is it a coincidence that many feminists are Jews, and they are supported by women, for the sake of gender equality?

Let's see. Until after WWII in many countries women were actually bared from voting and political positions. Yet, Jews have been there. MEN gave Jews power over the fiscal systems and sold their lands to greedy Jews. The result we see. This happened around 1900 first in Europe, then in America with the foundation of the Federal Reserve Bank.

But it's nice to see that you ignore every historical fact and accuse women, who neither had the power nor the possibility to give anything away because they didnt possess it in the first place, instead.


Inferior to men, yes. It is common sense alright. Study history. There is little else except childbirth (and what is connected to biology) that a man can't do and a woman can. The best of the men exceed by far the best of the women.

Generated reality is no proof for the absense of ability.


Yes. Because you are a woman and you feel before you think. You are dominated by emotion.

:-O Do you know me?


Your posts supporting perverted "liberties" like homosexuality are proof.

It's not my fault when you don't understand that these people shouldn't reproduce. YOU and people like you are responsible for the effimination of societies with forcing genetic defective people into a 'normal family life'.

I'm just consequent, when I dont want them to reproduce, I have to allow them to live their life. The alternative is to kill them. You would do that probably, but like Vergest Engst said, not everyone should reproduce anyway and instead could support others.


No.

You only believe what you want to believe anyway.

Reading your post in the master / slave thread, there is no point in redefining what 'slave' could mean. You want a submissive woman with no own will. You are unable for compromise and most likely unable to deal with a strong, self-thinking women. You have a huge inferior complex and to cover it, you want a neat little woman that pops out babies and never complains.

Wolgadeutscher
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Let's see. Until after WWII in many countries women were actually bared from voting and political positions. Yet, Jews have been there. MEN gave Jews power over the fiscal systems and sold their lands to greedy Jews. The result we see. This happened around 1900 first in Europe, then in America with the foundation of the Federal Reserve Bank.
The 1900s were nowhere near comparable to this contemporary age.


But it's nice to see that you ignore every historical fact and accuse women, who neither had the power nor the possibility to give anything away because they didnt possess it in the first place, instead.
They had the power when they were allowed to vote. With all the Jews supposedly in place, before women were allowed to meddle into politics, the damages were nowhere near as catastrophic as today.


Generated reality is no proof for the absense of ability.
If ability never manifests itself, then it probably is inferior.


:-O Do you know me?
I read your posts.


It's not my fault when you don't understand that these people shouldn't reproduce. YOU and people like you are responsible for the effimination of societies with forcing genetic defective people into a 'normal family life'.

I'm just consequent, when I dont want them to reproduce, I have to allow them to live their life. The alternative is to kill them. You would do that probably, but like Vergest Engst said, not everyone should reproduce anyway and instead could support others.
Not all homosexuals are born that way. For some it's a choice. I didn't say homosexuals who are genetically that way and don't try homosexuality to experiment the latest fashions should be forced to have families. But that is not a reason to allow homosexuals to "live and let live". They should be outcasts, exiled preferably.


You only believe what you want to believe anyway.

Reading your post in the master / slave thread, there is no point in redefining what 'slave' could mean. You want a submissive woman with no own will. You are unable for compromise and most likely unable to deal with a strong, self-thinking women. You have a huge inferior complex and to cover it, you want a neat little woman that pops out babies and never complains.
I want a traditional woman, and a traditional woman is submissive to her husband. Why do you downplay and mock the woman's role of a mother? Maybe it's you who has the inferiority complex, especially since at your age you have no children and you spend time writing lengthy posts on a forum repeating the same mantras against tradition again and again.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, November 23rd, 2009, 03:56 AM
Here's a good example of why not: John McCain, sponsor of George Bush and Ted Kennedy's illegal alien amnesty, has a 20 pt lead amongst women against an anti-immigration opponent, but the anti-immigration person has a 20 pt lead over McCain amongst men:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_senate_gop_primary

Senator John McCain’s future in the U.S. Senate may be a little less assured than previously thought.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely 2010 Republican Primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%.

Former Minuteman leader Chris Simcox gets four percent (4%) support, while two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Hayworth, a conservative former U.S. congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it. He captures 59% of the male GOP vote, while McCain wins 58% of female voters.

Younger GOP voters like Hayworth more than their elders. McCain has a solid lead among the relatively small number of moderate and liberal Republicans in the state while Hayworth picks up a plurality (48%) of conservatives.

Huginn ok Muninn
Monday, November 23rd, 2009, 07:23 AM
I don't want to sound Freudian, but I still think psychology plays a role. I have every respect for women, but as participants in defending the nation from outside threats, they must go against their nature to do so. Our essential natures are at cross purposes.. it is the males' nature to seek to penetrate, the females' to seek to be penetrated. This tolerance for invasion, extrapolated to the group dynamic, may in fact have gotten us invaded as a nation. This compassion for aliens and other misfits of society which is, on average, more pronounced in women, is probably a manifestation of the id. When they fail to have children, this compensatory compassion is even more pronounced. Some part of their inner psyche seeks penetration, and part of them resents their own men for not being manly enough to properly restrict them despite themselves, so they allow these aliens to penetrate the nation and control them.

This, of course, does not apply to every woman. Many are strong and intelligent enough to adapt and retain their wits, but the phenomenon of the social liberal, the traitor to society, requires explanation, and it so happens that social liberals tend to be women and submissive men seeking these womens' approval. Unfortunately, among women, there are more of the social liberal type than the other.

Rozenstorm
Monday, November 23rd, 2009, 08:02 PM
I don't want to sound Freudian, but I still think psychology plays a role. I have every respect for women, but as participants in defending the nation from outside threats, they must go against their nature to do so. Our essential natures are at cross purposes.. it is the males' nature to seek to penetrate, the females' to seek to be penetrated. This tolerance for invasion, extrapolated to the group dynamic, may in fact have gotten us invaded as a nation. This compassion for aliens and other misfits of society which is, on average, more pronounced in women, is probably a manifestation of the id. When they fail to have children, this compensatory compassion is even more pronounced. Some part of their inner psyche seeks penetration, and part of them resents their own men for not being manly enough to properly restrict them despite themselves, so they allow these aliens to penetrate the nation and control them.

This, of course, does not apply to every woman. Many are strong and intelligent enough to adapt and retain their wits, but the phenomenon of the social liberal, the traitor to society, requires explanation, and it so happens that social liberals tend to be women and submissive men seeking these womens' approval. Unfortunately, among women, there are more of the social liberal type than the other.

Clever, but crap. Like all Freudian nonsense. Freud was a Jew quack and charlatan. Anti-cultural and thus cultural Marxist crap. Incest is ok, homosexuality as well, culture (i.e our Western culture) prevents this from happening, yada yada yada. One of the arguments for the latter, is that urinating in a bonfire is a symptom of latent homosexuality. Sure, I'm a fag. :rollsmile

VergesEngst
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 02:39 PM
My thoughts here are similar to the thoughts I posted in another thread, that was discussing feelings about Jews.

If you say, "I hate Jews because they ________".

And if it is true that not ALL Jews ________.

Then it isn't true that you hate Jews: you simply hate _____, and the fact that many of them are Jews is a side-effect. You are (sorry to be so bold, but....) wrong in your identification of what you really feel.


Similarly, if you say "Women shouldn't vote because they _________."

And if it is true that not ALL women ______.

Then it isn't true that women shouldn't vote: it's just that people who _______ shouldn't vote, and this happens to also exclude many women.



You can put whatever type of argument you want as the blank: "are too irrational", "are uninformed", "are too emotional", and so on. Any argument at all for which you are willing to admit exceptions (i.e. "Well, I know that there are SOME women who are not _____, but they are the exception) falls apart.

It isn't women that are the problem. It's ALL people who fall into the category defined by the "reason" that you give.

velvet
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 03:32 PM
The 1900s were nowhere near comparable to this contemporary age.

They had the power when they were allowed to vote. With all the Jews supposedly in place, before women were allowed to meddle into politics, the damages were nowhere near as catastrophic as today.

No, but you insist to ignore the fact who gave the power to the Jews. It was men. Dont twist facts to fit your weird worldview.


If ability never manifests itself, then it probably is inferior.

If ability is suppressed effectively it never had a chance to manifest.


I read your posts.

And I read yours :P


Not all homosexuals are born that way. For some it's a choice. I didn't say homosexuals who are genetically that way and don't try homosexuality to experiment the latest fashions should be forced to have families. But that is not a reason to allow homosexuals to "live and let live". They should be outcasts, exiled preferably.

You dont understand it, no?
When you threat people with exiling them, you still force them into a normal life and they will reproduce for the sake not to be exiled and outcasted.
And honestly, I've never heard of anyone who became homo out of fashion reasons. That's utter bs. :oanieyes

I just wonder why people freak out about them? What is that?


I want a traditional woman, and a traditional woman is submissive to her husband. Why do you downplay and mock the woman's role of a mother? Maybe it's you who has the inferiority complex, especially since at your age you have no children and you spend time writing lengthy posts on a forum repeating the same mantras against tradition again and again.

I speak out against christian tradition, because I think it is the root of all the problems we face here. With christianity came the Jews, and with Jews came all that other nonsense. Hel, even your last pope was a Jew.

'Tradition' is no value of itself. And specially this 'tradition' is a semitic one. I would be more in favour to return to OUR way of life. And if you like it or not, women back then were not submissive. Yes, they took their role as mother, but they were no slaves to their men.

Your christian 'tradition' told you that women are inferior by nature, that they have no soul and are not able to make decisions for themselves. Funnily enough it is these women who give birth to the imagined superior man. You are not superior, you are just one part of a whole. There is no reproduction without either man or women, you need both. Welcome to the 21th century, you should finally learn to deal with women on an equal basis to you.

Gender roles defined by biology have nothing to do with that. If you want respect, earn it. :shrug

Chad Krueger
Friday, November 27th, 2009, 02:52 AM
I too believe the male is the head of the household and it is his responsibility that the family be provided for. He is the final say over all matters but with this comes full responsibility for any failure. No! Women should not vote.

I have given this question more thought. I have strived for Truth. I am an American who follows the greatest principles for a Republic ever written. The Constitution of United States of America. All men are created equal. This includes all genders, races, and occupations. After this last election here in the United States I believe that society has failed. I believe there are worthless voters in all genders, races, walks of life. The dumbing down of society if you will. I now believe that all should vote under the provisions of the US Constitution. I have seen women stand for freedom while I have seen males stand with tyranny. My theory of no women voters fails every time. I still believe males are the head of the household. We males need to wake up and become educated. We males need to be the head of the household and act like it. Take a stand side by side with females who believe in freedom and truth!!! Yes! All (including Women) should vote.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, November 28th, 2009, 12:39 AM
The Constitution of United States of America. All men are created equal.

Where in the Constitution does it say that?


I now believe that all should vote under the provisions of the US Constitution.

That was the 19th Amendment, enacted in 1920, a year after the 18th Amendment which banned alcohol. The 18th Amendment has since been repealed, I don't see why we can't repeal the 19th as well. The Founding Fathers who wrote the original Constitution certainly never intended for women to be allowed to vote.

cannage
Saturday, November 28th, 2009, 02:24 PM
why shouldnt they? that should be the question.
you dont need to be incredibly intelligent to understand the economic/social consequences of voting for someone.A 17 year old can understand a voting system so why cant a woman?
they should stop unintelligent people voting

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 07:50 AM
why shouldnt they? that should be the question.

This was answered a number of times in this or a similar thread, basic summary being that women have a tendency to vote for left-wing politicians for emotional reasons.




they should stop unintelligent people voting.

How? Just about every system suggested so far is flawed and unwieldy. About the only one that makes any sense at all is a general ban on voting for the non-employed. Besides, I don't see why we can't just do both

Rozenstorm
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 10:59 AM
My thoughts here are similar to the thoughts I posted in another thread, that was discussing feelings about Jews.

If you say, "I hate Jews because they ________".

And if it is true that not ALL Jews ________.

Then it isn't true that you hate Jews: you simply hate _____, and the fact that many of them are Jews is a side-effect. You are (sorry to be so bold, but....) wrong in your identification of what you really feel.


Similarly, if you say "Women shouldn't vote because they _________."

And if it is true that not ALL women ______.

Then it isn't true that women shouldn't vote: it's just that people who _______ shouldn't vote, and this happens to also exclude many women.



You can put whatever type of argument you want as the blank: "are too irrational", "are uninformed", "are too emotional", and so on. Any argument at all for which you are willing to admit exceptions (i.e. "Well, I know that there are SOME women who are not _____, but they are the exception) falls apart.

It isn't women that are the problem. It's ALL people who fall into the category defined by the "reason" that you give.

Law should be founded in collective principles, not in individual principles. The mean is much more important to a social group than their exceptions.


No, but you insist to ignore the fact who gave the power to the Jews. It was men. Dont twist facts to fit your weird worldview.

If you would have a normal worldview, you would know that power is taken, never given.



You dont understand it, no?
When you threat people with exiling them, you still force them into a normal life and they will reproduce for the sake not to be exiled and outcasted.
And honestly, I've never heard of anyone who became homo out of fashion reasons. That's utter bs.

I think the emo subculture is a perfect example of fag culture cultivated.


I speak out against christian tradition, because I think it is the root of all the problems we face here. With christianity came the Jews, and with Jews came all that other nonsense. Hel, even your last pope was a Jew.

As if, Jews were emigrating since the diaspora, a problem caused by pagans. They moved around a lot like termite colonies, trough the pagan world at first, they just didn't get to here until we got to a high civilization level, and coincidently when Christianity was on the up.


'Tradition' is no value of itself. And specially this 'tradition' is a semitic one. I would be more in favour to return to OUR way of life. And if you like it or not, women back then were not submissive. Yes, they took their role as mother, but they were no slaves to their men.

As if. If Bach was born in the prehistoric ages, his influence would have been significantly smaller. That is tradition. To build on what your ancestors have built. Besides, 'YOUR' way of life does simply not exist any more.


Your christian 'tradition' told you that women are inferior by nature, that they have no soul and are not able to make decisions for themselves. Funnily enough it is these women who give birth to the imagined superior man. You are not superior, you are just one part of a whole. There is no reproduction without either man or women, you need both. Welcome to the 21th century, you should finally learn to deal with women on an equal basis to you.

Are you telling me, that in the pagan world, women were given equal rights? I can only think of one pagan civilization like that, Sparta.



Gender roles defined by biology have nothing to do with that. If you want respect, earn it. :shrug

As if! What feminist lies! The fact that little girls play with dolls and play housewife, while boys play with cars and toy-guns is a perfect example of how genderroles are NOT cultural. It's a simply caused by mother-instinct and emotive dominant female thinking.

If advertisers would practise your feminist beliefs, they would all go bankrupt. Buying behaviour is massively gender-separated. All other things as well, from hobbies, to movies, to eating behaviour.

Man: "I'll have the steak please, with fries"
Woman: "I'll have the tagliatelli with scampi's"


I have given this question more thought. I have strived for Truth. I am an American who follows the greatest principles for a Republic ever written. The Constitution of United States of America. All men are created equal. This includes all genders, races, and occupations. After this last election here in the United States I believe that society has failed. I believe there are worthless voters in all genders, races, walks of life. The dumbing down of society if you will. I now believe that all should vote under the provisions of the US Constitution. I have seen women stand for freedom while I have seen males stand with tyranny. My theory of no women voters fails every time. I still believe males are the head of the household. We males need to wake up and become educated. We males need to be the head of the household and act like it. Take a stand side by side with females who believe in freedom and truth!!! Yes! All (including Women) should vote.

Men aren't created equal. Neither are women for that matter.

VergesEngst
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 11:07 PM
Law should be founded in collective principles, not in individual principles. The mean is much more important to a social group than their exceptions.

I agree. I'm not saying we should found law based on outliers.

But in my mind, this is merely a matter of accuracy. Society should pinpoint true sources of problems -- not just find correlates of problems.

Abstractly: If X is creating a problem, and 80% of X are in category Y, then creating laws against Y will solve your problem 80% of the time. BUT.... if you create laws against X, you will solve the problem 100% of the time.

It might be easier to create laws against Y. But that's just being lazy. Good laws will isolate the SOURCE of the problem, not just things that happen to fix the problem "most of the time."


In this specific case: Irrational, emotional people voting creates a problem. Let's say 90% of irrational and emotional people are women (probably unlikely.... let's just imagine). If you prevent women from voting, you fix 90% of the problem. But if you take the extra effort to find a way to prevent irrational, emotional people from voting... guess what? You've solved 100% of the problem!

Because you put in the effort to identify the ACTUAL problem.

velvet
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 01:30 PM
If you would have a normal worldview, you would know that power is taken, never given.

When this is so, then why the Hel did the oh-so superior Germanic MEN allow it to be taken away from them? In their countries, on their soil, in their societies?


I think the emo subculture is a perfect example of fag culture cultivated.

Just because they look weird the vast majority of them isnt gay.
I've long been in the gothic scene, where some of the aspects of emo culture were present already too, and sexual liberty is a given. Yet, most of the people never had a homosexual encounter. And of those who once tried the most said it was a one-time thing. Fashion-reasons, not even opportunity, makes you a homo when you are none ;)


As if, Jews were emigrating since the diaspora, a problem caused by pagans. They moved around a lot like termite colonies, trough the pagan world at first, they just didn't get to here until we got to a high civilization level, and coincidently when Christianity was on the up.

No, my dear Rosa Luxemburg, the Jews were the ones who spread christianity. Paul was a Jew, the gospel writers were Jews.
Remember that the pagan Romans slaughtered Jews, including your long-haired hippie freak Jesus.

The Jews migrated because they managed to be hated by everyone, even their own people. A problem present for them since 3000 years. It is only with/through christianity that they are accepted. And not only accepted, but given power. While they convinced the people that money is evil and within christian (jewish-designed) doctrine it was forbidden to deal with money, the Jews 'sacrificed' themselves to deal with it. You think this is a coincidence? It's not. It's part of the design to trick you out of power - not least through the mean of seizing the people of their wealth, for which the church was the mean and the Jews the final receivers. Throughout history half the popes were Jews, Johannes Paul was a polish Jew. Christianity is Judaism-light, the mean to make you weak while Jews exercise their power over you. You better start asking yourself where your loyalties lie, with your genuine semitic belief or with your people.

We could have done well without christianity, and I'm quite convinced that we would still be in charge of our own lands if it werent for christianity. What did this weird belief bring what we couldnt have accomplished without? We had laws that were largely adopted by christianity, we had holy days that were adopted by christianity, we had customs that were adopted by christianity, we had culture that was adopted by christianity. Christianity corrupted all of this, and christianity opened our lands to the Jews, and to a destructive empire system. Christianity has absolutely no value of itself, it only can steal and corrupt. Look around you, thanks to christianity our lands now are just another multicultural mess, just like the cresspool the roman empire was in which christianity as you know it came to be. It is a belief for the weak, the retarded, the outcasts and lawless who find 'mercy' in it. Yes, this is what brought christianity to 'the up' :thumbdown


As if. If Bach was born in the prehistoric ages, his influence would have been significantly smaller. That is tradition. To build on what your ancestors have built. Besides, 'YOUR' way of life does simply not exist any more.

Might be, that doesnt mean though that it cannot come to existence once again. And when you ask me, it's high time, because christianity including its semitic anti-values has proven to be a failure.
Remember that marxism is directly designed on the blueprint of judeo-christian 'values', the only difference is that 'god' was replaced with 'state'.


Are you telling me, that in the pagan world, women were given equal rights? I can only think of one pagan civilization like that, Sparta.

Rights were splitted among the castes, not genders, which is stupid and very narrow-minded. It is an entire semitic thing to do so. And indeed women were free as men were free, when both werent thralls. They were priests, and in Frisia, Saxonia and the more northern regions priests were the keepers/speakers of law at the Things. They were given this position, to man and woman alike, when they proved worthy of that position. Women were the heads of the house, because they were in full responsibility of it when the men were out to hunt, to battle, to work the fields. They were the ones who raised the children.

The semitic-christian mindset turned out world upside down, instead of protecting your families from foes and enemies as is your male role, you invited them in the name of christ.
And now you whine about the results.


As if! What feminist lies! The fact that little girls play with dolls and play housewife, while boys play with cars and toy-guns is a perfect example of how genderroles are NOT cultural. It's a simply caused by mother-instinct and emotive dominant female thinking.

What does this have to do with 'rights'? How do gender roles determine the presense or absense of rights?


If advertisers would practise your feminist beliefs, they would all go bankrupt. Buying behaviour is massively gender-separated. All other things as well, from hobbies, to movies, to eating behaviour.

Well, Rosa Luxemburg, dont call me feminist, will you. :P


Man: "I'll have the steak please, with fries"
Woman: "I'll have the tagliatelli with scampi's"

I hate scampies, I hate salads, and I dont like fries very much either. But the steak is fine, with some baked or roasted potatoes and green beans. English please :P


Men aren't created equal. Neither are women for that matter.

You mix up two things that have not much to do with each other. No human is completely equal to another. This is called individuality and individual traits, talents, or the lack thereof.

Now, when a group of individuals form a society, and you want this society to function, there should be a certain set of rights for everyone. Otherwise individuals with no rights whatsoever will not work for this community, quite the opposite, they will work to change this society for them to have certain rights and opportunities.

I'm really tired of this genders-wars. It was christianity which splitted the body of society into genders (devide and conquer), with males being the godlikes and women the... well, they were nothing. They had no soul, no will, no rights and even were regarded to as born-evil. You whine about that it backfires on you and that women often see men as enemies and not comrades? Ask youself where this comes from. This fight will go on unless men learn to see women as humans on an 'equal' basis with them.
When you want to form a team, with equal rights but different roles, then you will find that women are quite nice comrades. When you decide to see them as inferior, dont wonder when you only see their not so nice side. It is up to you.

As said, when you want to have privileges, extra rights and respect, earn it. Otherwise you're just another bragging peasant who is surely not worth more than me. Christianity removed the castes, there are no more 'born-in privileges'. When you want the latter, remove christianity, and then let's see what your birth-right into the castes will give to you. Otherwise, stop that nonsense. You are not superior.

You, the oh-so superior males dont defend our lands. People like you claim that without the Greek philosophies, the Roman culture and christianity we still would be apes living on trees, barbarians with no culture, no language, no scriptures. None of this is true.

But this stance is the reason for that our lands are flooded with southerners who will turn us into another third-world mud population, because this is where christianity is the strongest.

When you think that, what exactly constitutes our racial superiority then? Obviously, in your view, we are basically incapable of everything. Shouldnt we be thankful to the Jews who order our lives, since we without them wouldnt even be able to work the fields properly?

Call me emotional, but I feel we would be capable of much much more than this poor and pathetic thing we tend to call civilisation. And I feel too that christianity is a stone on our feet which holds us back from becoming (again) the superior race we once have been. We were free and independend, until christianity came and brought us an empire, which were alien, a semitic mono-god which was alien, semitic 'morals' which were alien, a semitic desert worldview which were alien. We are perverted and corrupted, and when we dont break free of that corruption, we will be the last generation of Germanics.

But people like you even state that the next semitic wave is superior to us, it has so cool morals. That is why you give your church to savaging muslims who desecrate your houses of your semitic god. Oh wait, they bow down to the same god, right. You self-claimed superior males dont defend your women, your lands, nor your children or future. Dont claim you would be superior. In pagan societies women long would have demanded from you men to wipe them out, as is your fu*kn duty. What do you? You bow down to a semitic god. :thumbdown

Rozenstorm
Saturday, December 5th, 2009, 11:45 AM
When this is so, then why the Hel did the oh-so superior Germanic MEN allow it to be taken away from them? In their countries, on their soil, in their societies?

Parasites can kill a lion.





I've long been in the gothic scene, where some of the aspects of emo culture were present already too, and sexual liberty is a given. Nuf' said.

sayjonoinsfeld
Saturday, December 5th, 2009, 09:09 PM
We're a large part of the population and decisions made by the government effect us as much and in some cases more so then men. As adults we are fully capable of making decisions based on past and present information as well as the consequences of our actions in the future. It only makes sense we have a say in who makes the decisions we all will have to live with.

Jäger
Sunday, December 6th, 2009, 11:21 AM
As adults we are fully capable of making decisions based on past and present information as well as the consequences of our actions in the future.
There is no such automatism, just because you are an adult doesn't mean you can make informed decisions.

Randwulf
Sunday, December 6th, 2009, 12:09 PM
:)
Just try stopping my wife from voting. :thumbup

cynuise
Monday, December 7th, 2009, 02:36 PM
Yes. You could just have easily have asked should men have the vote and I would still saying yes.

YsterNel
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 05:03 PM
I have to agree with Blutwölfin. Voting is a gigantic responsibility; the more idiots the more stupid the mistakes that their polititians make.

LadyFirehawk
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010, 12:42 AM
I voted no-- I favor examinations being given in order to determine a person's eligibility to vote. This would likely result in more enfranchised men than women; however, it would not discriminate based purely on sex.

Roemertreu
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 11:33 PM
Well, I don't know about whether woemn should vote or be banned specificly, but I do think that the vote needs to be severely restricted. Personally, I'm bothered more by people voting who haven't held a job in the last 6 months, or those who dropped out of high school and are functionally illiterate.

Personally, I think votes should all be given to the head of the household -- one for each person over 16 living there, and THEY get to divy up the votes any way they feel like. However anyone over 18 and jobless for more than 6 months in a year don't count as members of a household.

Dirigible
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010, 11:13 PM
I have a very low opinion of the value of political elections in the first place, but if we're going to have them, then yes, women should be allowed to vote. While arguments about women being less capable of making sound decisions can be made, all of this is really irrelevant, as the results of democratic elections are never decided by logic, but by the rhetorical abilities of the politicians.

Weitgereister
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 04:28 AM
I agree with Lady Firehawk...at least in modern day America, citizens should be required to pass examinations in order to vote...similar to registering for a drivers license. It would certain do away with most of the negro and hispanic votes. ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 11:17 AM
These exams would work fine, if only they were free of PC mandates that women & minorities must have equal scores.


:)
Just try stopping my wife from voting. :thumbup

That could be easily accomplished, though it may create an inconvenient media story. The real question is, would your wife angrily march down to prevent us from excluding a bunch of airhead bimbos/single moms from voting.

Sybren
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 11:51 AM
It would be nice if all idiots weren't allowed to vote. The problem is, who decides who is an idiot and who is appropriate to vote?

About the women's right to vote, personally i feel gender shouldn't be discriminated upon when deciding who is fit to vote. Better start developing a system that excludes total morons from voting.

Actually, i'm not a big fan of democracy. I don't know what system would be better though...

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 11:54 AM
The problem is, who decides who is an idiot and who is appropriate to vote?

I don't know what system would be better though...

Well, that's why historically women were not allowed to vote, amongst other restrictions. It was not the most precise system, but it worked.

Niall Noigiallach
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 11:59 AM
Women weren't allowed to vote since they weren't required to protect that liberty through war; since women in the army aren't given front line jobs they also should not be allowed to be vote until they protect their privileges through blood and sacrifice and should not be allowed to alter the course of their nation. This also applies to the mentally ill and other people not fit to fight for their right of Freedom and the decision of their country's path.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 12:02 PM
That's all good, so long as women and other mentally ill are not permitted to join the military on the basis of equality or allowing them to vote.

Meister
Friday, April 1st, 2011, 04:27 PM
The right to vote as with Citzenship should be earned in some way not a birthright. By having to earn it you ensure that the person voting will care enough to think about the big picture not just tick a few boxes to avoid a fine (as in Australia) it also increases the amount of respect and pride a person feels for their country.

I hate that people who have just become citizens in our countries can then go and vote and have a say in immigration and other social policies.

I would sooner have 1 million white German Women vote right wing than have 1 million white, left wing socialist Men vote.

To me it isn't about gender at all.

dark mind
Friday, April 1st, 2011, 08:36 PM
women are no sub-humans so they should basically have the same rights as men, however I think women should submit themselve towards their husbands, not by force but due to true love

Astrid Runa
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 12:44 AM
Yes, we should have the right to vote.
Wether you like it or not, women have opinions, too, and they don't always go hand in hand with those of men.
It would not be a fair democracy if women did not have the right to vote, plus, the world would be VERY different today if women did not have the right to vote.

Sigurd
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 11:32 PM
That's all good, so long as women and other mentally ill are not permitted to join the military on the basis of equality or allowing them to vote.

Women and other mentally ill? :-O The right to vote, or lack thereof is one thing, and there's many reason to opine why a certain group should or should not have it. However, collectivising half of our folk (the female portion) as "mentally ill" IMHO isn't exactly fair. ;)

feisty goddess
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 11:51 PM
Sorry, but the fact that this question is even being brought up makes me question whether I really want to be on this forum. I am no femo-nazi, but I think feminism has served its purpose in the past. I think its healthier for society for women to fulfill their traditional roles, but I don't appreciate the self-centered medieval nonsense that some wackos post on here. If I don't have the right to vote, I shouldn't have to fulfill any duties as a citizen.

The funny thing is I think most men on here wouldn't be able to support their family if it wasn't for feminism (they don't have enough income or are too lazy to make enough without the help of their wife).

However, I don't really see the point in allowing women to be in the military, except for working in medical.

SpearBrave
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 11:55 PM
The funny thing is I think most men on here wouldn't be able to support their family if it wasn't for feminism (they don't have enough income or are too lazy to make enough without the help of their wife).

One could say because of feminism men can no longer support their families as adding women to the workforce made labor cheaper.;)

Forest_Dweller
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 11:58 PM
women are no sub-humans so they should basically have the same rights as men, however I think women should submit themselve towards their husbands, not by force but due to true love

I don't agree that women should live in submission as if they are inferior, a marriage should be about mutual respect for each other. I don't like this whole concept of women becoming a mans possession, there only to bolster a mans ego it sounds very primitive and Islamic.

Of course women should have the right to vote, their opinions aren't inferior to mens.

feisty goddess
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:00 AM
One could say because of feminism men can no longer support their families as adding women to the workforce made labor cheaper.;)

Well, if a man can support his family completely on one income and the wife can stay at home and devote all her attention to her children, then I have no problem with that, but some women are infertile or can't have kids. It doesn't work for everyone. Also there are some women who really shouldn't have kids, like ones with serious disorders, so IMO its really not a good idea to cut all women out of the workforce. Plus there are some jobs that women can fill better than men. A competely women are children society just won't work anymore in this complex world, things have changed. Women are needed in certain jobs and its just the way a capitalist modern society works.

SpearBrave
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:10 AM
Well, if a man can support his family completely on one income and the wife can stay at home and devote all her attention to her children, then I have no problem with that, but some women are infertile or can't have kids. It doesn't work for everyone.

It did work for everyone for thousands of years. Before feminism women did not enter the workforce in mass as they are today. Without these women in the workforce jobs paid enough so that a man could provide for his family without the separate income. So in a strong way feminism is to blame for destruction of the family unit.

The problem is women can say that they can do any job a man can, but there are certain jobs that women are better at, oh the hypocrisy.:thumbdown

feisty goddess
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:12 AM
I don't agree that women should live in submission as if they are inferior, a marriage should be about mutual respect for each other. I don't like this whole concept of women becoming a mans possession, there only to bolster a mans ego it sounds very primitive and Islamic.

Of course women should have the right to vote, their opinions aren't inferior to mens.

When a woman is a man's possesion like a child, she will do a poor job raising children. Women have to be intellectual, have a good understanding of psychology/sociology and how to world works, self-secure, and be loving but realistic and firm. This is why women are wired to do so many different tasks and think in so many different ways. It is not really clear cut whether nature wants women to contribute to the family or raise children. I feel in our society there has been a loss of maternal instinct though, which is messing children up. There are very good mothers who are intelligent and somewhat independant and then there are very bad ones. I think maternal instinct traces back to childhood; if you didn't have a good mother you are likely not to be a very good one either (though there are exceptions). It's ok for women to submit to their husbands a little bit and its natural, but they still need to be very educated and intelligent to raise children properly as well as have good judgement.

Sigurd
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:12 AM
I think its healthier for society for women to fulfill their traditional roles, but I don't appreciate the self-centered medieval nonsense that some wackos post on here. If I don't have the right to vote, I shouldn't have to fulfill any duties as a citizen.

In all fairness, one'd have to say that is hasn't solely been men who mentioned they disbelieved in women's suffrage. Especially interesting in that context is this (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=915234&postcount=41) post by a woman and former regular, Deary. :)

I think the question is multi-layered, and it's not directly a question of women's rights or women's value. That is another problematic by-product of today: Men who actually believe that women should not have the right to vote may be afraid of voicing their opinion in fear of being taken for misogynists; whilst women might believe that equal value means equal rights and responsibilities (which voting is both).

That being said, I do agree at this point with those who have said that a better question should be a thread that asks who should have the vote, if at all; this would make for a more balanced, less biased discussion and would certainly be free of allegations and reading between the lines. For as is, the best post in the entire thread was still by Zyklop: "No. And neither should most men." ;)


The funny thing is I think most men on here wouldn't be able to support their family if it wasn't for feminism (they don't have enough income or are too lazy to make enough without the help of their wife).

That is a different issue altogether. Both aren't comparable, though they have the same route --- and perhaps might even mean that today it is true that it may in most cases need both partners to work. I do think it is all orchestrated to some extent - family discounts are getting rarer, prices for basic amenities are rising to the astronomical, and most certainly many services that used to be for free are now charged for. Last but not least, media propaganda suggests we need this fancy stuff and that fancy stuff that we'll throw out in the next spring clean-up anyway.

However, I may like to remind that just one generation ago, my paternal grandfather was able to support a family of one wife and six children on a single income, and my father mentions that they were never missing anything. As we are at now, most families in which both parents work are struggling to support a family of three kids even. So also a multi-layered question, as the whole ideas of needing both partners to be in the work-force is something that curiously has only popped up in the past 20-30 years in the wake of the social engineering that's happened since 1968.

That being said, I am not advocating any model as right for all, I do believe that each Germanic family should know what works best for them; we can only give suggestions, and advocate whatever we find works for us to others by example rather than rational argument (as situations are as diverse as they come). :)

Patrioten
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:12 AM
For those of you who oppose female voters, are you doing it out of principle or out of a belief that the participation of female voters in elections since universal suffrage has contributed to the problems that we nowadays face due to their leftist slant and thus pose a functional/historical problem? As I discussed in my earlier post in this thread, in Sweden the left wasn't carried by the women, it was carried by the working class who wanted a specific number of economical reforms that they were promised by the left. What the left did was to use that mandate to other ends once the original promises had been fulfilled and the wellfare state had been created. In Sweden the numbers supporting the left were distributed evenly among men and women up until the 70s. The voters who voted for the left got some things which they wanted, and some things that they didn't want - this is the problem with the way that the system was set up.

Let's take another country as an example, let's say in your country women were overrepresented among left wing voters by say 5% or 10% from the start of universal suffrage and onwards. This caused the reds to get in power and do their worst. So then the reason why we are here today is that 5% or 10% overrepresentation among women. Hm. I guess in a strictly numerical sense, it's true that this overrepresentation meant left wing victories, but is the problem really this overrepresentation, slight as it is, or is it more an issue of poorly constructed "democratic" systems that did not allow for the will of the people to be heard? Who asked for mass immigration? Who asked for gay marriage? Who asked for treating criminals like patients? Not the people. The people wanted certain things, men and women, and in some countries 5-10% more women than men wanted these things. They got more than they bargained for however and thus we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

If the 5-10% overrepresentation is what bothers you, then just look at Sweden where no such overepresentation existed, did we fare any better? Europeans have been used, and abused, as means to an end by left wing ideolouges. The left is to blame, not the people, not the men, not the women.

feisty goddess
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:15 AM
It did work for everyone for thousands of years. Before feminism women did not enter the workforce in mass as they are today. Without these women in the workforce jobs paid enough son that a man could provide for his family without the separate income. So in a strong way feminism is to blame for destruction of the family unit.

The problem is women can say that they can do any job a man can, but there are certain jobs that women are better at, oh the hypocrisy.:thumbdown

I never said anything about women being better at any job a man is, thats just utterly ridiculous. Men are better at making business deals, engineering etc. All I meant was there are certain things women are better at, and society needs a balance, its not good for men to control everything (it worked in old times but that doesn't mean it would work now). Women make better nurses, secretaries, teachers, clothing designers etc. Its not entirely due to feminism, its mostly the new changes in technology and population increase.

In other words, the problems we have now are not because a bunch of women marched down the street and "fought for their rights", its because the world is different mostly because of a bigger population and globalization of everything. Its a long process of events and changes that have contributed to these problems, not feminism itself.

Sybren
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:17 AM
I know it sounds very corny and cliche, but i believe men and women - although different from each other - are beings equal to eachother and should have equal rights.

Placing women as a whole on the same level as mentally ill people sounds downright disgusting to me to be honest. What kind of an attitude is that!? Sounds indeed medieval and Islamic-like to me.

SpearBrave
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:25 AM
I never said anything about women being better at any job a man is, thats just utterly ridiculous. Men are better at making business deals, engineering etc. All I meant was there are certain things women are better at, and society needs a balance, its not good for men to control everything (it worked in old times but that doesn't mean it would work now). Women make better nurses, secretaries, teachers, clothing designers etc.

You see with feminism the balance was broken. Women are now doing the jobs that traditionally went to men. We need to restore some of the balance that was lost in the old times. This balance is what shaped who we are today. As we go down the slope of the modern world we will continue to loose ourselves as a people.

Sigurd
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:44 AM
Women make better nurses, secretaries, teachers, clothing designers etc.

Agreed on most points, except that I feel that actually men make better teachers. I sit in a course with 80% female students, and we have our share of male and female professors. In that I find that the male professors' mode of teaching is more intellectually stimulating - some of our female lecturers have a somewhat sedative mode of holding their course.

I found a similar thing to be true with the students, the male students tended to be better able to catch the attention in presentations in many cases, I believe this has to do with the fact that men tend to be better with püblic speaking, and are also less afraid of receiving harsh criticism in turn. And since being a teacher has much to do with being a) an authority and b) rhetorical skill, I have generally found men to make the better teachers (this was also true during my first attempt at university, so it is not just an "exception proves the rule" thing)

(Notice I'm completely unbiased here as both of my parents trained to be teachers)

For the secretary part it's clear though. Women are better at organising things, any event amongst comrades is always a chaos in planning until the women step in to save the day. :P


You see with feminism the balance was broken. Women are now doing the jobs that traditionally went to men. We need to restore some of the balance that was lost in the old times.

Actually, only half the truth. As a smith you should know best that before the industrial revolution kicked in, it was customary that a smith, baker, shoemaker etc. would have their shop in the same house as home: Which allowed both man and woman (and oft the children) to work together in the same place, indeed it was oft necessary to survive.

It was only the industrial revolution which changed this so fundamentally to what we know as "traditional family roles", and it ties in which what FG said about change in technologies in a way. It may sound odd, but actually the "traditional" work/home model isn't older than 200 years, and we still see ancient work-sharing (albeit some things tend to be done by the women and others by the men, naturally) in farming families out here. ;)

Plantagenet
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 12:55 AM
I don't know how I feel about the issue. Firstly I don't know if I am convinced a democratic system is the best system in the first place. I don't think a large majority of the populace, let alone women, are able to make politically informed and logically sound decisions. I also feel the large majority of the populace is easily swayed through propaganda and emotions, fulfilling a role much like pawns in a game of chess.

In the case of women, I would say that the vast majority of women I have encountered see issues on an individual level rather than looking at the broader picture. I would also say that the vast majority of women I have met have also been predominantly emotional creatures and (unfortunately) irrational creatures. I think this fact renders the majority of them incapable of making politically sound decisions. I have also noticed, and I think that studies have also confirmed this, that women tend to be more liberal and left-oriented. One can also look at things through a historical lens and see that pre-feminism and pre-women's suffrage our societies were in a much healthier state than they are in the post-feminism, post-women's suffrage world.

Of course I would rather have a conservative folkish-minded woman cast a vote over a leftist anti-racist politically correct man. I also respect the fact that there are women who are more intelligent, more rational, and more able to make politically informed decisions over many men, however this does not seem to account for the majority of women. I can also appreciate that there have been some politically gifted women in history and some politically inept men, but again I don't think this accounts for the majority of cases.

All in all, I think that men and women are equal in dignity, but different in function. I feel the most noble role a woman can play is that of a loyal wife and mother who can raise successful and intelligent children. Overall I think politics and war should be left to the male sex, as it seems this is the natural way of things throughout history and across cultures.

Mrs vonTrep
Monday, April 4th, 2011, 01:02 AM
So in a strong way feminism is to blame for destruction of the family unit.

True, but what caused feminism then? I would say that the desert religion called christianity is what caused feminism. Up until the jews started to enslave the Germanic people with such a foreign religion as christianity we lived as Germanic people naturally live, where the man provided for his family, and the woman took care of the household and children and other things that could be done from home such as working on the farm or whatever it was. This was the way of living even during the time of christianity - but with a very big difference. Men were taught to oppress their women all of a sudden, to make them submissive and obeing, which eventually lead to a female revolt, a.k.a feminism.