Should Women Have the Right to Vote?

[Þoreiðar]

This Guardian article for instance writes about this being the case both in Hungary and Poland, which both have a quite conservative cultural hegemony with strong ruling parties (to the point that even the Left attribute this hegemony to Orban's party and their success).

That's good news. Although, the article brings up some stats among young Poles: "Among men aged 18-30, 62% said they supported nationalist, populist or far-right parties and 33% backed liberal or leftwing ones. Among women, 55% supported liberal or leftwing parties and 43% were in favour of the nationalists."

Not a gigantic difference, but if only either of the sexes were to vote, it would tip the scale in opposite directions.

Even in the case of Hungary, I can imagine the slight female numerical advantage among voters for Fidesz can be explained by men voting for even more staunch Nationalist parties, like Jobbik.

If you believe that voting behaviour is governed by what happens in the ballot box alone, then you're very naive. People tend to be scared to vote what their peers believe to be the "wrong" choice. There is, by and at large, more at stake for women, by risking exclusion from a social circle than there is for men - for biological and social reasons.

I am well aware that people internalize the self-image they project outwardly, but the question was whether or not people (or women, specifically) risk anything by going against this at the ballot box. They don't.

I criticise women at the same level I criticise men when the criticism is on equal merit. Here it's not: Women naturally seek structural stability. If men are supposed to be those to afford that stability, then women breaking away from sensible politics in drones is more the fault of weak men than it is of women: if men "get stuff done" then the absence of "getting stuff done" is also their fault.

So it basically boils down to: women shouldn't have the vote, but it's all men's fault for giving them the vote in the first place.

Turning the feminist logic around and pointing fingers about how women supposedly ruined all whilst men didn't have a part in letting all this slip won't help at all.

I, at least, have never stated that. Men have failed in a variety of different ways.

Instead, they will just tend to vote with what seems to offer stability even if in it doesn't in the long run: Not getting raped & having your kids killed by the conqueror but instead being protected is what counted in the Stone Age and that's not only a long term question.

I'm not sure I understand your point. "Women vote for stability, even if it doesn't lead to stability"..?

[Nordic Angel]

I always vote when there is an election and of course I always vote for a nationalist party. But if it was possible that I could trade in my right to vote and get a free nationalist German state for it, where our race, culture and traditions are preserved and where my children could still live in happiness, safety and freedom, I would gladly do so. This would be a great deal. So my right to vote is certainly not my top priority, when I could get more important things instead.

On the other hand, this whole question could also be solved by giving the right to vote only to people who have done something for the country. Like men who did military service or women who are married and have had Germanic children. Just a thought.

Of course we could also abandon the right to vote completely and have a king rule over the country but this would only be good if the man is a true king (in regards to his personality, morals, ethics and attitude). We certainly don't need a tyrant and if such a tyrant ever came to power, it should be possible for the people to get rid of him.

[Sigurd]

That's good news. Although, the article brings up some stats among young Poles: "Among men aged 18-30, 62% said they supported nationalist, populist or far-right parties and 33% backed liberal or leftwing ones. Among women, 55% supported liberal or leftwing parties and 43% were in favour of the nationalists."

That doesn't contradict what I said about "hegemonial voting", instead it supports it to some extent. The Eastern European countries seem like a beacon of sense to us, because their zeitgeist isn't as rotten. At the same time, liberalism is spreading into this area as well.

As such, western mindsets that lean towards the left also enter the youth. Sure, to a much lesser extent, because in Poland even the climate protesters use signs saying "save bees not refugees" without issues, and because the Polish left is usually still further right than the German centre-right.

But it shows these countries need to halt their highway towards Westernisation, quick, because they suck up the dangerous tendencies as well, and do so much quicker, naturally.

So it basically boils down to: women shouldn't have the vote, but it's all men's fault for giving them the vote in the first place.

If your view is that women shouldn't vote, then yes, that's the consequence of the argument. It's not my view though,I think the female vote can be salvaged with a changing hegemony, and otherwise think that most men are as dumb in their political choices as their female counterparts, too.

I'm not sure I understand your point. "Women vote for stability, even if it doesn't lead to stability"..?

The left/liberals have made a good job of making it seem like they stand for stability, whilst patriotic and nationalist movements are somewhat unstable, dangerous and/or likely to make yourself into a pariah. They do this in a very successful manner and it won't be easy to break that. So yes, in essence, it's an illusion of stability they offer them now.

Of course we could also abandon the right to vote completely and have a king rule over the country but this would only be good if the man is a true king (in regards to his personality, morals, ethics and attitude). We certainly don't need a tyrant and if such a tyrant ever came to power, it should be possible for the people to get rid of him.

That's the essential question. With a Platonic type philosopher king that kind of operates in a "Father Knows Best" manner with letting people live their lives for the most part, but stepping in when they slip up and thus acting as a type of "benevolent dictator": I do think most people would not fuss with that arrangement and that's probably why I previously strongly advocated it.

However, the Platonic philosopher king is very rarely attained. And even when they do appear, their successors are oft likely of a lesser profile (getting yourself into the "half a mile up the old ruler's ass" area usually shows other 'qualities' than apt leadership, too), making this too volatile an eternal arrangement. Philosophy is always as good as the best ideal - but practice is always as good as its worst possible outcome.

[Þoreiðar]

That doesn't contradict what I said about "hegemonial voting", instead it supports it to some extent. The Eastern European countries seem like a beacon of sense to us, because their zeitgeist isn't as rotten. At the same time, liberalism is spreading into this area as well.

Could one part of the explanation be that they've only been voting for about three decades, and hence not been subject to the effects of female voting patterns for as long as the West has?

If your view is that women shouldn't vote, then yes, that's the consequence of the argument. It's not my view though,I think the female vote can be salvaged with a changing hegemony, and otherwise think that most men are as dumb in their political choices as their female counterparts, too.

They evidently are not. Men vote for more traditional, Nationalistic and conservative policies across the board. I've said it countless of times in this thread, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to stick with some.

The left/liberals have made a good job of making it seem like they stand for stability, whilst patriotic and nationalist movements are somewhat unstable, dangerous and/or likely to make yourself into a pariah. They do this in a very successful manner and it won't be easy to break that. So yes, in essence, it's an illusion of stability they offer them now.

I think the left/liberals have been making an absolute mess of it. They've had the majority power in most of the Western World at least since the 60s, and they've produced anything but stability. Dismantling of the traditional family, women's introduction into the workforce, mass-immigration, multiculturalism, gay pride, transsexualism... These are not hallmarks of stability. They are radical and revolutionary to the core.

[Finnish Swede]

History:

[Gegenschlag]

I don't believe in democracy anyway, but you can't deny that female suffrage has only made things more difficult for us.

[Astragoth]

Funny how it coincides almost exactly with the total collapse of western civilization.
Its almost like women's suffrage destroys civilizations.

[Fylgje]

I believe in Zensuswahlrecht.