Poesix69 said:
I don't want to play angry feminist because it would require me to lie or pretend reality is different that it is.
I was just wondering why women vote left? I consider myself centre right and I had ( relatively short ) left phase long before I could even vote.
From my observations of both myself and other women it seems to be flaw of empathy, or rather miss directed empathy, they hear all stories about how black are "discriminated" and eat them up without context. And with media that share informations reinforcing left wing point of view ( compare how much Floyd death was in news to any case of white person begin murdered by balck one. ) they end up believing in woke nonsense.
Of course there are some emotional men but statistical men are ones who tend to be more rational and less likely to vote for open borders because they saw "totally not propaganda" article about sad Mexican kids or something.
Still let's be honest male normies aren't much better, how many of them is trained to hate anything even remotely racist?
I doubt if we even should have democracy at all tbh
realistically most men shouldn't be voting either, it's just that men are able to have a rational debate with one another about various topics. Women's politics boils down to her immediate self interest, especially as she ages: protection/security, provision/supply. the first sect grows a bloated police state and legal system, which ensures preferential treatment for women, and second part is literally just "welfare for all but especially me". This is why it's often called "Daddy Government"
When the Roman Republic was founded, it was the "patricians" (Roman noblemen) who handled everything political and were the only ones who voted. Overtime this was expanded to the plebian men and especially those who served in the legions, and then Rome became an Empire and all that shit went out the window. In America when the founding fathers created the Constitutional Republic, the vote was initially restricted to "landed gentry" (American noblemen), and very shortly after has been expanded slowly but surely to not only the common man but also different ethnicities and worst of all women (even the late stage Rome wasn't that stupid) but basically the intention for Republics is that only those men of which have land (which they had to upkeep), paid the most in taxes and/or were ready to or have served militarily should be granted the privilege to vote. Land was a lot more expensive back then, but basically it was a way to show that you had a stake in the outcome of your Republic.
The issue now is the 19th amendment (and women voting everywhere), but if we're being serious the real cause of this prime issue was the 14th amendment which guaranteed citizenship (and thus eligibility for voting rights) for all (white) men born or naturalized in the USA. And also inheritance for female relatives becoming big in the middle ages, meaning that men of low station and high station would literally vie for the affections and love of women (who inherited lots from their dead dad) causing all kinds of strife in the lands all so that they could secure their position as new nobility through conquest/war.
A system that solves these issues is a system that actually treats everyone fairly, funnily enough. In a Republic, create strict standards with which the privilege can be revoked or granted based on a variety of criteria, such as paying net taxes, owning and upkeeping land, serving in the military. You can even add some for flavor if you wish like religious based requirements to keep a nation more religiously homogenous, denying the vote based on dual allegiance (goodbye AIPAC and Jewish interests), etc.
