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.
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.
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.
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.
(post is archived)