Five Answers to the Woman Question

Over at Jim’s Blog:

Possible answers to the woman question:

  1. Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
  2. The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
  3. Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
  4. Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
  5. They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.

This description has an element of satire, but also … we know what he means and … it is hard to argue against.

This is basically why women have always been under male supervision, or at least, under the supervision of older women trained in productive principles. In the end, if they are not, they will destroy themselves, and any man that comes near them. A few women have the self-control and foresight not to fall into these traps, but they are few.

A lot of women (all those not named Pearl Davis) will complain about this characterization, as they complain about everything everywhere all the time. But, none of these women are really doing anything about anything, or showing any real insight of the sort that men have been busy doing for the last 20 years or so. The main error men have made is to buy into the feminist line that women and men are not that much different. Apparently, they are completely different.

Matron Style

Adult women, it is said, have three phases: Maiden, Mother, and Crone.

Ummm …. “Crone”?

Seriously?

“Crone” doesn’t sound like much fun. Like a witch. And it turns out this is indeed embraced by … Wicca (witchcraft).

Rather, the proper term for the idealized older woman is: Matron. This is a mother whose children are out of the house, or nearly so. She is married.

The duties of a Matron are to take care of her extended family, namely: her adult children, and grandchildren. Then, with her free time since the children are out of the house, and with decades of experience, she can be active in the community in some way.

Also, typically with more wealth, and a house of her own, she can be involved in various forms of decorative and fine arts, beginning with beautifying the home; ambitious cooking, and all the other niceties of civilization. Because, who is going to do it, if not her?

This is all good fun for the Matron, and also contributes to the well-being of her extended family, and the community as a whole.

As we all know, one of the top activities of Matrons is … setting up marriages between their children. Who do you think organized and paid for all this stuff?

Early Feminist Margaret Fuller

What all expressions of Feminism seem to have in common is: there is no good plan for raising children. Because, once you are raising children — especially more than one, and any society that persists is going to need more than one child per woman — then that takes a lot of a woman’s time; or she needs to find some alternative, which are not very good.

We already saw that Mary Wollstonecraft was basically a 30+ spinster that was trying to find something interesting to do with the rest of her unmarried, childless life. This makes sense for 30+ spinsters, but not for women as a whole. And today we have Margaret Fuller who … was basically a 30+ spinster that was trying to find something interesting to do with the rest of her unmarried, childless life.

Like Mary Wollstonecraft, who basically began hanging around with “anarchists” (communists) and became a single mother, Margaret Fuller began hanging around with revolutionaries in Italy, and also, it seems, became an unmarried single mother although she still had a “relationship” with the biological father. Like Mary Wollstonecraft, she died young, sparing us the spectacle of growing old as a single mom.

Fuller was big on education for women, but wanted to avoid the “strong mental odor” of female teachers.

Does any of this make sense? Typical of feminists, it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Should Women Vote?

Should women vote? Was the 19th Amendment a mistake?

Basically, women should not vote; and the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

The idea that voting rights should be given to all men is, itself, a fairly new and extremist position. In the early days of the American Republic, voting was often restricted first to men; and of course White Men; and often there was some kind of property requirement.

Wikipedia on the history of voting rights in the American Colonies and the United States

This is illustrated in this chart:

We can see that, before 1860, only about 15% of the adult population voted.

Now, it is important here to understand that the Founders, and also philosophers going back to Aristotle and earlier, considered Democracy to be a degenerate system of government that tended to rapidly fall apart.

This opinion was based on the history of Democracy in the various Greek states. Usually, the Democratic majority would basically vote to confiscate the wealth of the wealthy, and distribute it. Of course this quickly led to chaos, and then the aristocrats would be asked to come back and re-establish order.

Wikipedia on Politics by Aristotle.

With this in mind, the Founders did not conceive of a “democracy.” They wanted a balanced government, with elements of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy (or Republicanism).

Basically, following the successful examples of Rome and Britain, this meant:

A President who would be like a Monarch, capable of quick, decisive action;

An Aristocracy of the “best, brightest, capital and wealth,” that would secure the interests of business.

A Democracy or Democratic Republic that would protect the well-being of the common man.

Here’s Rome:

Ancient Roman Government Hierarchy Chart | Hierarchystructure.com

In Britain, this was:

The King;

The House of Lords;

The House of Commons

In the United States, it was:

The President;

The Senate (originally appointed by States and not elected)

The House

Today, we have Way Too Much Democracy.

This Mixed Government would also be confined within the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The Federal Government was basically responsible for foreign affairs, including: The Military; Borders, Immigration, and Naturalization; Trade and Tariffs.

The States would be responsible for all other Domestic policy, in turn limited by State Constitutions.

In other words, the Federal government would not be involved in:

Any kind of domestic welfare programs, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or all means-tested welfare benefits.

Also, the Federal Government was effectively banned from Direct Taxation (Income Taxes). Of course this was changed with the Sixteenth Amendment. Basically, there were only Indirect Taxes, such as sales taxes.

The Federal Government was supposed to keep the dollar’s unchanging value in gold and silver; and eventually gold alone in the Gold Standard Act of 1900.

I bring all this up to illustrate that More Democracy Is Not Better. Democracy, unrestrained by the Enumerated Powers and other limitations of the Constitution, unmodified by the Monarchial Presidency and the Aristocratic Senate (before the Seventeenth Amendment of 1913), has always been considered a certain failure since the days of Aristotle.

The property requirement for voting, for example, could be considered a mild push toward Aristocracy within the context of the democratic element of the House.

The Senate used to be called the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” It was a collection of the Best and the Brightest. Why? Because it consisted of Senators appointed by the States, not elected in a popular election. Appointees tend to be of the Best and Brightest category. Just look at Federal appointees today, such as the Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justices, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve. They are all extremely bright and extremely capable people.

Here is the US Senate itself, explaining its purpose in the scheme of Mixed Government.

The US Senate on Balanced Government

Of course we all know what happens when we are ruled by Elites alone. They are lost in their own little world of self-interested delusion. This is why the Elite Senate had to be tempered by the Democratic House.

The point is, Democracy among men alone is already considered a certain failure. So, a Democracy that also includes women might be even worse. Let’s take a look.

Here we have a look at what the 2012 Presidential election would have looked like if only Men voted.

First, the actual election:

Democrat Socialist Barack Obama won, of course.

If only men (including Blacks and others) voted:

And if only White Men voted:

Basically, if only White Men voted (even with no property or income requirements), we would have … the government envisioned by the Founders. Small, Limited government. This is even after a century of Socialist Marxist brainwashing in media, education and elsewhere. White Men are still voting for the original Constitution.

All the Socialist crap that we have today has basically come about from Women Voting, within the context of Too Much Democracy and the effective eradication of all the Constitutional restrictions beginning with the Enumerated Powers.

But, Too Much Democracy itself comes from women voting. If only White Men voted, they would vote for … Constitutional restrictions and the Enumerated Powers. Just as they did in 1789.

Just as RooshV described some years ago, if women didn’t vote, the Democratic Party would evaporate. Today’s Republican Party would be the Leftist Party, and a new Party would emerge to the Right, which would basically be Ron Paul.

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirely of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

Women: You aren’t any damn good at this stuff. Even men, when allowed unfettered Democracy, always destroy themselves. You are just blowing things up faster, and blocking Men, like the brilliant Founders, from fixing things.

Just look at the brilliant analysis of Aristotle, then improved by other thinkers such as Montesqieu and leading to the Founders. Men do that. They do that naturally, all the time, because they are interested. Women never do that. Yes, a woman can recite Aristotle, by rote, if she is trained to do so, and pass a test. But, women do not have the analytic ability, or tendency or desire, to do so naturally. Today, we have had a similar direction of analytic ability, insight and discovery into the questions of gender, known as the Manosphere or Red Pill. It has been a tremendous effort, and has paid rich rewards. Look at the brilliant work of Dalrock, Sigma Frame or many others. Just look at it. Is there any woman doing this, anywhere? There are a few women — very few — who do read and understand the analysis that has taken place over the last 15 years. These women include Helen Smith and Pearl Davis. But, they are mostly repeating things they learned elsewhere, from men. Even they — rare as they are — are not really offering much new insight.

Yes, there are a few brilliant women, like Margaret Thatcher. But these are so rare as to be basically unique. As soon as you have two, three, four or more women, the Law of Averages comes into play.

Matriarchy Does Not Exist: Presidential Debate Edition

Here we have some silly bitch complaining that:

  1. Vivek Ramaswamy, at the recent Republican primary debate, criticized the moderator because she was actively involved in the “Russia collusion” story that we all now know was a hoax cooked up by the FBI working for Hillary Clinton. Certainly the Republican Party, in no need to compromise with Democrats in the primary debates, could get someone better? (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EDqss9DKRbg)
  2. Ramaswamy criticised the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, because she has been a complete disaster for the party — among her failures, getting a corrupt anti-Republican media hack to moderate the debate.
  3. Ramaswamy criticised presidential candidate Nikki Haley because, well, it’s a Presidential Debate duh.

This dumbitchinese is, actually, typical for women in any position of responsibility today.

Margaret Thatcher would never have bothered with such nonsense.

We have to admit that, like Thomas Sowell, Margaret Thatcher was so exceptional, compared to the norm, that she was basically unique.

Matriarchy Does Not Exist.

Is 29 Too Old To Have A Family?

Women these days seem to be in lalaland. Actually, they were always in lalaland. They’re women! This is why they need men to Tell Them What To Do.

Here is a lovely woman on Lori Alexander’s blog, who quit her career as a doctor to become a stay-at-home Mom.

I am blessed to stay at home while my husband works, and I care for our 20 month old. I just turned 29.

It was always my dream to have a big family, but my parents always told me that “kids ruin your life” and “get your career and have kids later.” So wrong.

I worry now that I am 29 with one child. Am I too old to have a big family? Are three kids possible? I wish I had spent my 20s building up a family. I have so much painful regret. Please can you offer me some advice and wisdom.

Now, I could mention that here’s a woman with eight years of pre-med and medical training, with a new baby, wondering if she can have another baby at Age 29.

Okaaaay.

But, women are getting messages that can be confusing.

Can a woman get pregnant and have a healthy baby, or five, during her 30s?

Yes!

Can a woman have a family, at Age 29?

Maybe not.

If a woman is 29 (or 30, a milestone), and she is single with no prospects (a steady boyfriend likely leading to marriage), then there is a somewhat low chance that she will marry eventually, a precursor to children.

Recently, it has taken a stupid 58.7 months, on average, from first meeting to eventual marriage. This is ridiculous, but that’s the way it is. That means that the women getting married at Age 34 were actually NOT SINGLE at Age 30 (on average), but had already become a couple with the man they eventually married.

So we can see that if you are single at Age 29, your chances of marrying in time to have children (more than one) is perhaps not so hot, although the exact probabilities are debated. For example, this 1985 study of white college-educated women found that women Age 30 who were still single had only a 20% chance of getting married.

This was in the 1980s. It is so much worse now.

We saw that in the 1990s, only 42% of high-earning career women (like doctors) over 40 had children, way below the 85% rate for the Non-Hispanic White population as a whole.

So, if you are Age 29 and still single, and a college-educated career-type woman, the odds really are not so hot.

This means that you can’t just “let things happen,” because usually nothing happens.

I suggest this: tell people that “I want to have a family of six children, and be a stay-at-home Mom.”

This helps men figure out if you would want to have a family and be a stay at home Mom — which most careerist women do not.

This is actually a very different message than the typical career girl who says: “I want to get married so I can check off that box on my careerist resume,” with of course no thought to being a Stay At Home Mom. Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? You gotta be joking!

Some guy might just step up and say: “Boy have I got a deal for you.”

Also, a woman should forget about all the cultural norms that lead to 58.7 months passing between meeting and marriage. Get it done in Six Months or pass. Maybe a year if you dawdle. Some people take a year to plan a wedding! This is nonsense. It’s just a party. Buy some good wine and have a good time.

For men, there are a lot of good women out there who would probably like an offramp from the highway of careerist childlessness. I don’t know about this woman’s “body count,” but she told Lori Alexander that she has never actually tasted an alcoholic beverage, and never took birth control.

If a woman is coming off a ten-year “hoe phase,” then pass.

Marriage Without The State

Around here, we are searching for practical solutions. We leave theory mostly to others. But, we need theory to arrive at solutions that work.

Among our collection of convictions are:

That a couple should make an effort to keep The State out of their marriage, specifically by omitting any “marriage licenses” and probably retaining a legal “nonmarried” status as regards the State. However, a vague and open-ended “cohabitation” is not a good format either, in particular because it does not give enough stability for having children and raising them. In Europe there does seem to be an effective “common law marriage” that involves what we Americans would call long-term cohabitation with children.

Among Americans, there should be some ceremony of “marriage” beyond cohabitation, but that does not involve the State. Probably, there would be some kind of “marriage contract,” which we call a “prenuptial agreement” but might as well be called a “nuptial agreement,” which is probably what it was called in the past. I regard “prenuptial agreements” today as something like a Will. There is a State default process if a person dies without a Will, but it is terrible. So, any one of the middle class or higher should have the marriage equivalent of a Will, or what I am calling a Nuptial Agreement.

Mostly, we are using Nineteenth Century models around here, because they worked, and because they are still part of the cultural memory. However, it is worth looking into the foundations of this more closely. Sigma Frame did a historical review of marriage that has shown lasting worth.

Are Common Law Marriages The Most Bibilical? (June 3, 2023)

But marriages today basically live or die by “common law agreement.” A family survives because a woman is a Good Wife and a Good Mother, and does not blow up her family with cheating/divorce/nagging and all the other ways that a woman can become a pestilence to her husband and children. Yes, there are bad men too, but if we exclude those men driven to find alternatives due to intolerable wives, what percentage of marriages are failing (either through divorce or continued misery) primarily due to men’s fault? I think it is not many, especially among those with a bachelors’ degree, where women initiate 90% of divorces.