Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

For me it all goes back to the family unit. One vote per landed household. Women are matriarchial thinkers. They are biologically and spiritually programmed to prioritize emotions and feelings and to seek to produce an environment where all can get along. That is not a good tool set for making decisions about the rights of others. Men are patriarchial thinkers and are programmed to prioritize logic and facts and innately recognize justly-wielded, hierarchical authority. That is a much better tool set for making life and death decisions. Men seek to solve a problem, and either solve the problem or go to war. Women seek compromise, even if it means selling their childrens' future. The woman's skills are designed to work within the framework and boundaries set by patriarchial authority. We can compromise and find comfort if standards and values are maintained.

Of course these are all generalizations that can be twisted and abused and there will always be exceptions. But by and large that is reality.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

For me, it's pretty simple. It's anathema to the nuclear family unit. The concept of organizing a society on the basis of functional family units is that each family is thought to represent an interest. Therefore, a community becomes a cluster of units having similar interests. Each unit casts a vote. By giving women the right to vote, what you effectively do is undermine the representative function of the male husband. If we think that the male is naturally a more argumentative and disagreeable thing within in society (which is supported strongly by psychological literature), then it would make sense for the male to be the political representative for the unit.

Therefore we also think that the male will do a more effective job of representing the interest of the family unit, as opposed to possibly capitulating to outside social pressures, which more agreeable people might be influenced by.

For each and every time a wife votes differently than her husband, she effectively cancels both of their votes, and across populations consisting in hundreds of millions of people, comes to represent noise within the system which disproportionately swings with the most authoritative voices in television, news media, and pop culture.

The family unit, in order that our votes be effective, is meant to have the power to resist these forces. Therefore, giving women the right to vote actually reduces the power of the family, compromises the structure of society, and introduces channels for mass social programming to hijack the vote.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Very well put. I would just challenge definitions here.

the male is naturally a more argumentative and disagreeable thing within in society (which is supported strongly by psychological literature)

I would state this as men have a stronger tendency to provide a check against usurped authority and a stronger inclination to stand up and fight for their values and standards. The Jewish invention of psychology was produced partially to introduce the terms you used (argumentative/disagreeable) to castigate men for causing division when they stand up for their interests. "Why are you so negative, can't you just be positive?".

This lays the foundation for demonizing masculine protection of values as "toxic". The patriarchal authority figure is now identified as the one who causes division and who blocks the synthetic whole from achieving acceptance and unity. The traditional man is viewed as the source of cognitive dissonance when he stands and says "no". The group must then purge him if they wish to see their communist utopia become a reality. Psychology was created for that purpose.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes, I'd agree with that. To your point, I used the phrases without even questioning them. I've used them so many times that it's just a heuristic, basically. I do agree. For what it's worth, I don't take disagreeability to have a negative connotation. I meant exactly as you have said, which is they are likelier to challenge authority. The male, if he feels something is wrong or contrary to his own value system, is likelier to disagree with sources of authority than the female, who is likelier to mask her own values if she experiences social pressures that make it seem more beneficial.

[–] • 0 pt

I understood your meaning. I just wanted to point out how those terms are read by others and what they mean to the dialectic Bolsheviks. I dont think there's anything wrong with being disagreeable or negative either. "No" is the most important word in our language.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

The issue isn't women voting, the issue is having barely any criteria for voting for voting in the first place. There is no way that some 18 year old hood rat who through dumb luck hasn't been arrested should logically have the same say as a 40 year old veteran who has started several successful businesses. Only an idiot would actually think such a system is a good one, it is the same exact system high school kids use to pick prom kings and queens.

Making it so you have to be active duty military or a veteran with an honorable discharge and/or a landowner would solve so many of these problems (though it would still be an inferior government). Be honest, would anyone actually care if women could vote but only if they were veterans who owned land?

I would also propose that anyone running for a public office should also meet the criteria of being a voter under such a proposal. No more politicians who have never served.

[–] • 0 pt

The whole military service requirement would only work if our military functioned Constitutionally. As far as I'm concerned, anyone willing to throw their life away to fight for Zion is no wiser or more qualified to discern than the 18 year old gangbaner.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Have you ever considered that in a relatively short time elected officials who supported war in the middle east (or anywhere not directly posing a threat to the US) would be phased out if only veterans voted?

The whole reason we have these wars in the middle east is because idiots who never had to actually serve in the military had a say in what the military did. Most veterans are not anti-war, but most I have met agree that every war since WWII was a pointless war. And the only reason they think that the world wars were not pointless is because they were not veterans before those wars started.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

And the only reason the idiots who never served can start those wars in the first place is because of those in the service who obeyed even though the orders are plainly unconstitutional.

Forgive me if I'm not thrilled with the idea of handing the reigns exclusively to the group who has served as the mailed fist of Zion for decades.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

Exhibit A: The nigger

Case closed.

Opps forgot niggers got the right to vote before women.

Exhibit A: A woman

Case closed.