Women and Socialism

Last night’s post about the demographics of the Austrian election prompted a lot of comments about the role of women in creating the current existential crisis in the West through their support of open borders and mass immigration.

One of the commenters brought up a video by Stefan Molyneux, “in which he claimed that within 10-15 years of women receiving the vote in all Western nations, a welfare state apparatus was implemented in those nations, at least to a certain extent, and in all cases.”

Mr. Molyneux’s assertion is not false, but it elides the complex development of modern state socialism that long preceded the granting of the franchise to women. As I said in my reply:

He’s not entirely correct. The first welfare state was actually created in Imperial Germany by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s and 1880s, when the franchise was entirely male.

Giving the vote to women accelerated the process, but it was already well underway when men were in charge. Think of Dickens — his concern for taking care of the wretched, normally a prerogative of females, was widespread among educated men in the mid-19th century.

Yes, it’s true that women tend to vote for immigrant-friendly and socialist policies more than men do. And yes, it’s true that this tendency has been in operation since women first got the vote. And yes, it’s true that the female vote turbo-charged the development of the modern bureaucratic welfare state, beginning at the end of the First World War. And yes, it’s true that the men who pushed socialism as a political program have exploited the female vote for their own ends ever since women were first granted the suffrage.

But let’s look at the history of Socialist and Progressive movements.

In the early 19th century the wave of social change sparked by the Great Awakening took several forms. A move to end slavery, spearheaded by William Wilberforce, took shape, abolishing the slave trade wherever the British Navy could enforce the ban, and spreading eventually to the USA to become the Abolition movement. The crusade for Temperance, also originating in the Christian awakening, evoked fervor on both sides of the Atlantic — think of Carrie Nation, taking her axe to the evil saloons.

But atheism was also widespread, and the Progressive impulse among atheists (and some Christians) took the form of Socialist ideology. From Rousseau to Marx, Engels, Proudhon, and all the rest, socialism evolved from a concern for the welfare of the impoverished urban proletariat into a full-fledged revolutionary movement. One by one the governments of the West implemented various aspects of state socialism to forestall those revolutions. After the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, the need for state socialist programs became all the more urgent for the Western democracies.

By then women had the vote, and Socialist ideologues such as the Fabians — George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Ramsay MacDonald, Emmeline Pankhurst, Bertrand Russell, et al. — were able to draw on the new female electorate to push for the foundation of the modern welfare state in the 1920s and 1930s. But socialism had been established in the West long before that: the modern form took shape first in the German Empire under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

As I wrote in “Junker Socialism” almost eleven years ago:

The virus of socialism has infected Western thought for at least a century and a half. The ideas of Marx and Engels, of the anarchists, communists, and social revolutionaries, have floated though our cultural air for so long that we hardly even notice them. But the left-wing revolutionaries were not the ones who ushered in the welfare state; that job was left to a reactionary Prussian aristocrat who believed in the divine right of kings.

Prince Otto von Bismarck was the greatest political genius of modern times. As Minister-President and Foreign Minister of Prussia in the 1860s, he successfully steered Prussia through two major wars, enlarging its power and humbling its Austrian and French rivals. When he engineered the unification of Germany and created the German Empire in 1871, he became its first Chancellor under Kaiser Wilhelm I. Facing a collection of fractious and hitherto independent principalities, he managed to consolidate and strengthen the new empire. By the time he was forced into retirement by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1890, he had wielded political power for thirty years and experienced unparalleled success, transforming Germany from a semi-feudal federation of states into one of the world’s pre-eminent cultural, political, and military powers.

One of the reasons for Bismarck’s success was a shrewd understanding of the socialist movement. As an aristocratic Junker landowner, his natural tendency was to suppress the socialist nuisance — which he did, banning socialist organizations and arresting their leaders all through the 1870s — but he realized the appeal of the socialist ideas, and co-opted them with his own programs.

The Revolutions of 1848 had concentrated the minds of the European elites. Liberalism as a revolutionary force gradually gave way to socialism, and the Paris Commune in 1871 was a wake-up call for the hereditary aristocracy and governing classes all across the continent.

In the 1880s Bismarck responded by instituting mandatory health insurance for workers, followed by accident insurance, old-age pensions, and disability insurance. His early version of the welfare state was modest by today’s standards, taking at most 6% of a worker’s wages. But it was enough to sap the power of the socialist impulse in Germany until after the Great War.

In the early 20th century the other European powers looked to Germany as a model, and gradually adopted variations of the same ideas. As Communism emerged as the dominant rival ideology to democratic capitalism, the West was compelled by political necessity to expand the welfare state. Communism is dead and gone, but the ideas of socialism remain, and the welfare state continues to expand.


The modern welfare state was a reactionary creation, adopted by Western governments to forestall revolutionary socialism. True socialism, in its Communist manifestations, was politically and economically unsustainable, and has taken its well-earned place on history’s ash heap. But the welfare state, as a parasite of prosperous capitalist economies, has proven more robust.

To see the welfare state as a creation of women’s suffrage beginning in the 1920s is to miss the larger picture. Men created the ideological systems known as Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism. Men built the first bureaucratic structures that administered the early welfare state. And men advocated for giving women the vote.

Among the men who pushed for female suffrage there were undoubtedly ambitious Socialists who wanted to tap all that estrogen-driven empathy in a cynical move to put themselves in power. Men cynically exploited the female vote, and they are still cynically exploiting it today. When exploited, the votes of women tend to put Socialists in power and help keep them there. So Socialists — most of them men — design their strategies and propaganda with an eye on female voters.

It’s not only factually wrong to blame women for the welfare state, it’s counterproductive. It won’t get us (men, I mean) anywhere to point fingers at the fair sex and thus further inflame the Gender Wars.

Men and women got themselves into this mess together. And — given that it’s no longer possible to take the franchise away from women — the only way to get ourselves out of it is for men and women to work together.

33 thoughts on “Women and Socialism

  1. the only way to get ourselves out of it is for men and women to work together

    Oh, how I wish.

    The gender wars are as ancient as Adam and Eve.

    Whether one chooses the first or second version of the story (yes, do check: there are *two* versions in Genesis), whether or not one chooses to see it as a myth or the real thing, the story remains a powerful undercurrent in the eternal, on-going enmity between men and women. Only to the extent that one accepts one’s own culpability and very human limits can there be any peace at all.

    The worst sin is to pretend that men and women are alike. We are foreign countries to one another, sharing a common language from which we make very different meanings. It takes diplomacy, tact, and humility to live with another person. To live with another gender? Amazing that it’s even possible! Only great love makes such a miracle possible.

    The saddest thing about modern life is the p.c. buzz saw cutting into and hacking off the best of our differences in order to create a Huge Lie about our purported sameness. What a cruel, death-dealing joke.

    • Unfortunately, we are a bit more mechanistic than we give ourselves credit for. Women are empathetic so they do not destroy their children. Women who are less empathetic simply do not reproduce well. They will have no children, fewer children, or emotionally deprived children who themselves are less likely to reproduce offspring. Women who enjoy their children have more children if they can do so.

      Much to your point, Dymphna, if men do not provide safety for women to raise their children, women will try to mold their circumstances to obtain that safety. Thus, we get the cradle to the grave mentality as a state function.

      Therefore, when men take up the role of the protector of women, the state will wither from inattention. That will take the development of women who are willing to depend upon men to care for them. These roles can be observed in many cultures, but no longer in significant swaths of America. I have heard people comment as to how strange it is to see a family of three or four children seemingly enjoying their lives together in an intact family as they play in the street or travel on the New York subway.

    • Dymphna, I was just perusing another website when I came upon this text and picture, which goes to your point upon which I commented:

      Photographic series, curator’s choice
      Roy Avraham
      Shoham, April-May 2014


      A pair of bee-eaters in a variety of situations: courtship feeding, in which the male feeds the female bees and other insects (after taking the sting out of the bees); battles with other male bee-eaters over the right to use the branch; and the act of copulation itself. The series was photographed from within a vehicle, which was covered by a cameo net and used as a hiding place.

      Here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/-lev-hakak/nature-in-israel_b_9997738.html

      • Wonderful pictures. Here, we’ve had to tape long strips onto the windows of the kitchen (northern exposure) and in the sunroom (southern exposure) to keep one poor male cardinal from doing battle with his reflection. They must be very hard-headed since he’s still flying…but repeatedly AT his own reflection in both windows.

        Google brought up many hits on this common problem. It only occurs during mating season, but this is the first year it’s been a problem here.

        Normally the cardinals nest in the very large forsythia across the yard at the edge of the woods – just the kind of thick, brushy habitat many birds like. But we decided to let some raspberry canes which had sprouted under the kitchen window to stay there. They aren’t ripe yet but that might have initially attracted Mr & Mrs Cardinal to seek a new place nearer to food?

        We cut back an overgrown rhododendron (the whole row is overgrown) and some of the canes use that for a frame. In doing so, we exposed the glass to a bird’s-eye reflection…and whatever housekeeping is going on has surely been interrupted by the stress of ceaseless run-ins with his Rival in the Glass. The noise of his head hitting the glass in the kitchen, or his claws grasping the screen in the sunroom have certainly driven ME to distraction; I can only imagine his distress.

        Finally I thought of something I’d bought to use on my strawbale garden to chase away the birds:

        Bird-X Irri-Tape® Holographic Iridescent Foil Bird Scare Tape, 2″ x 25ft Length

        It’s cheap and it works beautifully stapled to the 2x4s at the top of the bales. So I took some strips from there and the B taped them onto the windows. I think it’s working since I’ve not seen him since the tapes went up. They don’t flutter much compared to how they move in the wind on the bales…or maybe we didn’t get them up in time and the couple moved? I hope the latter is not the case as we’ve had a cardinal couple here year ’round for a very long time. I think they need a fairly large territory since I’ve not noticed more than one. Not like wrens or phoebes.

        We have lots of bird varieties and I’ve resisted the temptation to feed them since I know I won’t have the stamina to keep it up. But I do keep the bird bath filled with fresh water, with a small battery-operated device that swirls the water, putting off any mosquito egg-laying.

        Thanks for the beautiful pictures…

        • I really enjoyed your reply, since I am a gardener as well as an occasion commenter. However, my intention was, in its majority, political. I was interested in one picture that had the caption: “…A pair of bee-eaters in a variety of situations: courtship feeding, in which the male feeds the female bees and other insects (after taking the sting out of the bees)…” as a continuation of my earlier comment on the conditions for reasserting family life.

          PS I gave up straw bale planting because of a discussion in “Countryside and Small Stock Journal” on the presence of Roundup in most bales to “dry it out.” The straw should be organic or it should be tested. Soak some of the straw in water. Then plant six seeds in separate pots. Water three pots with the tincture you made with the straw and three with ordinary tap water. If the three tincture-treated seedlings are shorter than those “regular” seedlings, you’ve got Roundup.

    • You’ll need to specify *which* definition of “feminism” you’re dealing with.

      I’ve been a feminist since dinosaurs roamed the earth (well, it sometimes seems that way when I see what passes for “feminism” these days): the kind of feminism that stated that, for the same work, women and men should receive the same pay. That, under the law, women and men should have equal rights (i.e., that “protective” legislation which keeps women from many high-paying civilian jobs because, ya know, it might be dangerous, actually works to women’s detriment). Etc.

      At no time did I think, believe, say, or even hint that men were expendable, The Enemy, or in charge of the laws which I and my friends/allies were trying to change. After all, men were coerced by these same laws to carry MORE than their share of stress and responsibility–one reason, I believed then and still do, for the dissimilar health and longevity patterns men experience vs. women.

      There were even women in that long-ago land who could see that men were regularly denied custody of their minor children for reasons that would *never* have been applied to women. The courts bent over backward NOT to find reasons to “tear” children from their mothers, but very suitable fathers were left bereft of their children, perhaps seeing them one weekend a month and during the summer holidays from school. That wasn’t equal, either, and men are still fighting this battle (in which I completely support them).

      I felt that, if men were to be drafted, then women should be, too. That way, members of Congress who were so quick to send young men who weren’t their relatives off to war in foreign lands might slow down (*might* slow down) if they were also sending young women off to those same far shores. Alternatively, of course, the draft could end and no one be forced to those far shores.

      Well. D*mn. I myself had been brought up in a military family and “knew”–but not explicitly enough then–that the military is the employer of last resort for many in this country, and the employer of first resort for many others. And, for quite a while, this remained the case and our country was well served by the voluntary armed forces. (I’m strapping myself to the mast here to avoid the Rumsfeld Delusion: “We can do more with fewer troops.” Another time, folks….)

      But now, having blown through our volunteers in the armed forces, Congress and/or the Executive branch want to
      1) reinstate the draft–and this time include women,
      2) send women–proven, in volunteer trials by the U.S. Marine Corps, to be less strong in hand-to-hand situations than men–into front-line combat positions,
      3) destroy unit cohesion by *requiring* the military to accept, on an equal basis, those whose “gender identity” is fluid, non-existent, or inverted, and
      4) accomplish all this by installing secretaries of defense and/or various armed forces who have NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE and/or are…ah…non-traditionally gender “identified.”

      Sorry, ensitue; Marxism is stupid. Feminism, where men and women have equal rights/responsibilities before the law, is not.

      • This is a comment that I left on Pamela’s site a short while ago on a similar topic. I think it is appropriate here and as a reply to Cynthia.

        I know the National Review is out of favor, and for weeks into months now it reads like cover-to-cover #Anyone But Trump agitprop. However David French is still pretty good and he recently wrote this for NR:

        To understand why, one has to understand the true object of modern feminism. The modern feminist doesn’t so much hate biological males as hate the very concept of manhood as a distinct and valuable aspect of the human experience. Masculinity, to the extent that it exists, is toxic and must be suppressed. Classically male virtues such as bravery, strength, loyalty, and an intellectual and physical sense of adventure must be de-gendered (after all, who’s to say that any given woman can’t share those traits?), while traditional male vices, including tendencies toward unjustified violence and superficial, obsessive sexuality, are to be regarded as essentially masculine.

        The result is a world where masculinity is understood to be inherently destructive. If women can’t penetrate traditional male spaces, such as fraternities, locker rooms, or infantry platoons, then those spaces are dangerous, and abolition or gender integration isn’t just a matter of social justice but, indeed, of public safety. “Bro culture” at its best is privileged; at its worst, it’s predatory.

        It seems to me that French sums up modern feminism quite accurately.

        • Sadly, somewhere between the ’70s and now, Mr. French’s definition took over the feminist school of thought.

          If anyone can show me how/where/who the previous version of feminism (the “equal before the law” version) was superseded by the current “men go away” version, I would be (intellectually) grateful.

          Thank you.

          • I’m wondering if a reading of Kate Weigand’s “Red Feminism” might be helpful here.
            She renders a sympathetic view of feminism and its historical underpinnings which necessarily places feminism as a lynchpin of communist subversion of the West.

          • Can’t help you there. You ask a terrific question though. It’s akin to the question of when did the meaning of liberal shift from one who was for liberty to one who was for socialism.

            I think feminism changed sometime between the ages of Susan B Anthony and Gloria Steinem. I don’t know enough to narrow it down better but it probably started in the ’60s along with bra burning and the rise of thoughtless progressive activism.

          • Harriet HT, I’ve requested Ms. Weigand’s book via interlibrary loan. Thank you for the suggestion.

      • The problem is egalitarianism. The sexes are different have different duties and responsibilities.

        Cowardice is not the same problem in women than it is in men for example.

        Moreover a functional society is hierarchical. Societies that were Christian were patriarchal and functioned well.

        Equality is an illusion and always is.

        Women should be excluded from certain things as do Men.

        Maybe a case can be made for giving suitable awards for how well the respective sexes do their duties.

        And the equity of sentencing under the law. But equality otherwise is an unmitigated disaster.

        I for one oppose feminism in all of its iterations because from the outset it is based on lies. The premise of oppression, and how women were powerless before feminism is a [container of waste material].

        The earliest cartoons in the 1920’s accurately depicted women who wanted the right to vote as those who sought to usurp men’s roles.

  2. Sehr geehrte Baron: The 19th-century social welfare programs developed by Kanzler Bismarck were inspired by what the Krupp Manufacturing Co. did for its own workers and their families. Wm. Manchester, in The Arms of Krupp, traces the roots of the 19th-century German programs.

    Stunning, that one of the longest-lived (1580s to 1968 or so) weapons manufacturing companies on the face of the earth provided the seed of such ultimately soul-destroying government programs. I had much rather my body be destroyed than my soul, any day of the week.

    • Cynthia,

      I’m not so sure why you consider health insurance, disability insurance, old-age pensions, and accident insurance to be “soul-destroying government programs”. Especially, as the Baron pointed out, they were instituted to forestall socialism, which is really a soul-destroying system.

      Just to expand on some of your previous topics, I would not associate “feminism” with your position: equal pay for (objectively measured) equal work and equal experience. You seem quite pragmatic on the subject, and as you’re so hostile to any government program, you’re surely aware of the economic arguments why the market itself has strong pressures against discriminatory pay. In a nutshell, if you are being seriously underpaid, over all factors including the tendency of females to take time off for kids, it will be profitable for a competitor to hire you away at a higher salary. So, why would we need to throw in a government enforcement mechanism for what is a consequence of basic economics anyway?

      Our economy, assuming we can solve the problem of Muslim dilution, will radically change our notions of the welfare state, or welfare company, in the future. Automation is putting huge masses of workers, including white collar workers, out of the job market, while producing more goods more efficiently. We might come down to a choice between some sort of widespread welfare system, or revolution and mass deaths. But, welfare in a completely automated economy of surplus goods is not necessarily bad, assuming the problem of reproduction of the non-fit can be solved.

      • I’m sorry I was unclear: socialism is the soul-destroyer. The Social Contract, which (ironically) Krupp & Bismarck supported with their “floor” programs, gave great relief when and where needed.

        Again, apologies for lack of clarity.

        And, yes, I’m pretty pragmatic about pay. Men are beginning to discover what women have known for a long time about leaving the workforce to care for children: the career-climbing process is interrupted, losing one’s seniority and “institutional memory” (in reverse: the people at work forget YOU); and of course there are fewer years of work experience to set against the pay scales.

        You and I probably agree on more of this than we disagree on, and I too am apprehensive about structural changes w/regard to automation and mass immigration.

  3. Excellent contribution to the discussion, Baron, enlarging as it does our understanding of the rise of socialism (Bismarck’s policies) as something of a safety valve to tamp down public enthusiasm for more radical forms of social change. Did I get that right?

    But for me, the deepest insights you offered were in your third- and fourth-to last paragraphs. I see clearly now the truth of the matter as it relates to men’s cynicism in using women to achieve their own positions of power and wealth: “Men cynically exploited the female vote, and they are still cynically exploiting it today.”

    Adam was, after all, standing idly by while Eve was being deceived by the serpent. The protector abrogated his role to defend Eve against the lies, and then joined her in her rebellion against God.

    I’m thinking that in the West we have perhaps three types of men: the snowflake metrosexual-types; the cynical users of women — there is some overlap in types one and two; and lastly, men of traditional virtues and values. During the last hundred years, it seems as if the first two have waged war on the third — and have enlisted the aid of the one *deceived,* who is not held guiltless, BTW.

  4. When socialists and progressives flirt with Islam, how much of their belief system can remain sincere? Women as equals? Multiculturalism and egalitarianism? Weakening of religion? and tribal affinities? Abolition of private property?

    They begin to appear as actors in a play. The play is about power only. Socialists can’t believe in anything and root for Islam at the same time. You cannot do both.

    • Marxists of whatever ilk see Muslims as “useful idiots.”

      Muslims see Marxists as “useful idiots.”

  5. Women do not naturally ‘do the math’, it is not that they cannot do it, but that other things are deemed more important. Life without a welfare state is a gamble, and especially for mothers who might become widows at the drop of a hat, and insurance based welfare can work, IF it does not turn into a feeding frenzy for spongers and big government employees.

    The ratio between the premium and the pay-out indicates the overhead, and if the overhead is too high then the system becomes a burden.

    Economic migrants expect to be supported by welfare systems without having contributed, and maybe never expect to contribute, this rapidly increases the overhead and the math becomes painful and destructive. An ideal weapon for a cultural Marxist attack on ‘white’ supremacy aka Christianity.

  6. Statistical facts?:

    Men WILL certainly implement tribalism, collectivism and statism some of the time. And it will be supported by a majority of the local men some of the time. And that is even in America.

    What you can’t escaped from is that a larger and more reliable majority of women — even in America — will support collectivism and statism nearly ALL the time.

    It’s just how the numbers rack out.

    And nothing will be done to help until the facts are squarely faced and accepted.

  7. From what I know — I’m by no means a diligent scholar of history — the main idea of Bismarck was to introduce a form of insurance against the loss of the family’s breadwinner. The industrial age had begun just a few decades ago and was booming, with safety nowhere near as much a concern as it is today. People had accidents, got maimed and killed in the thousands. Which means they couldn’t provide for their families anymore. The increased risk was clearly associated with working in industrial production, hence it seemed logical to make the branch responsible for bearing the cost of mitigation. The fledgling beginnings of the welfare state were nothing but a disability insurance (“Invalidenversicherung”).

    However, it somehow must have spiralled out of control after that, and this is the part I’m hazy about, especially Bismarck’s role in the later developments. Thanks for the reminder to put another topic on my reading list, it’s interesting.

  8. I have said it before but we are now past the point of democratic point of no return. Too many self interested ethnocentric minorities will not under any circumstances support us or vote with us. They will anything to stop us.

    We need an education programme for women, how about sending copies of Prof Jays Rotherham Child Grooming Report or Louise Casey’s follow up report? I sent copies of them to my formerly leftist cousin, and that shocked her and the penny started to drop.

    Not all women are the same and neither are men.

    The only way to convince the left is a report, they can only absorb facts presented in a certain format.

  9. This is all well and good, but it is possible to understand the danger of Islam while being a pro-Welfare State liberal, or even (perhaps especially) a feminist. It’s about being tough when you have to be tough (when you need to beat up a bully like Islam) and kind when you have the luxury. Unfortunately modern liberals have got this completely wrong by being kind to bullies.

  10. I think what is missed is the cause of the origin of “Progressivism” that has made itself known in its various iterations, communism, socialism, liberalism et al. From my study of history it seems that progressivism is a response by the many to the exploitive greed of a few. The Gilded Age that was America after the Civil War was one of the more obvious examples of a purposeful wealth skew. To their credit the Elite knew to throw a bone to the unwashed masses lest those masses revolt and the ensuing anarchy bring down the country.
    A closer examination of socialist and progressivist welfare programs will show that they are constructed to keep the lower classes in their place and have the classes just above them bear the burdens of cost and regulation that further insulate the Elite from the rest of society while allowing the Elite to treat their fellow humans both great and small as so much commodities.
    It goes without saying that the human heart rebels against this while at the same time being powerless to effect any change that is not tainted by the Elite’s demand for a continuance of the ‘en situ status quo’ that has been part of the human experience for millennia. It is to the women’s credit that they remind us that all humans are to be valued, and from the Judeo-Christian perspective as unique creations of God. That worldview, that each of us is a unique creation of God, has accomplished untold good as it will eventually lead us to regard others greater than ourselves in the love of God.
    To regard others as disposable commodities to be exploited and then disposed of is ‘the dark side of the faith’ that has given rise in response to its cruelties the progressivist evils that beset us these days (or was that daze?).
    At the risk of being moderated (again) I would say that Satan is not in hell but freely welcomed in boardrooms exercising his temporal authority while laughing at those down in the street who are protesting his actions and powerless to do anything to contravene them.

  11. “To see the welfare state as a creation of women’s suffrage beginning in the 1920s is to miss the larger picture. Men created the ideological systems known as Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism. ”

    As James Brown famously sang, Man made electric light to take us out of the night. Man made the chain to take the heavy load. Yeah, men created most things. Some of them were not good, like Marxism. Would the point be stronger if Marx had been female? I think not.

    Ann Barnhardt has opined that female sufferage has done more to ruin this country than any other political movement. She has a point. It is a large reason we have Obama. As Barnhardt points out, it used to be that the man was the head of the household and he voted for that household. After sufferage, the woman would vote opposite to her mate and negate the will of that household.

    I don’t vote against being mean and I don’t watch cat videos. Those who base their vote on such things should wise up and become informed or stay out of the process.

  12. This is a nice sentiment, but in the end, No. Re-read your article. You basically concede the point but then say that taking the franchise away from women is not possible. Islam will do that for us/them.

    Western women do not have a future outside of submission to Western men. The other choice is Islam, which German and Nordic women will likely embrace in large numbers. Romantic love is at an end for the next few decades for sure, century perhaps. This post-War female-centric society centered around catering to every passing whim of women was a historical aberration grounded on good demographics, homogeneity (white people), post-war economic largess, and foreign weakness. What is happening is deeper than I think people on this blog appreciate. We are living through something akin to the shift from paganism to Christianity. Forget about women’s “rights.” There will be no women or rights unless we literally take back our societies from feminism.

    • You may be new to this site. There *have* been previous discussions wherein the deep cultural shifts, similar to those you cite, have been raised and analyzed.

      As to “tak[ing] back our societies from feminism,” please see my comments upthread about what kind of feminism is being discussed. The current version, where college men can be accused of rape by women who have “morning-after regret,” is disgusting, and the wide resistance to on-campus tribunals wherein the accused have no rights is encouraging.

      Such resistance is a cultural marker that “things have gone too far.” There are lawsuits currently in process where students and parents of students are suing various universities and colleges so that their sons (and a few daughters) will have access to due process, should such unfounded accusations come their way.

      Rape is heinous and a violation not only of one’s body, but of one’s self and soul.

      “Rape,” as described by many current college women, is nothing of the kind. Their descriptions sound to me (and I DID experience multiple instances of what used to be called date-rape) like morning-after regret: they had relations with a fellow student the night before, whether or not one or both students were under the influence of substances/alcohol, but upon awakening the next day, these women think…did I *really* want to do that?

      If not, then he committed “rape.”

      If yes, then he needs to sweat it out for weeks, maybe months or even years, while she thinks it over. Maybe her depression isn’t due to failing a class–maybe it’s because he “raped” her that time.

      This may not be the direction you intended your comment to drift to, but one way to help young men is to make sure that the universities/colleges in your area do not give in to these extreme anti-male measures.

  13. From the casual discussions I have with women in social situations, as far as I’m concerned, it is true that women are generally pro-immigration, pro-big government, and they are also generally clueless about subjects like economics, and show no willingness to learn either. Their voting decisions are often based on just who seems to be the “nicest”.

    • Aha! That explains how my mind became “warped” in a pro-male direction!!!

      My first couple of years at college were at Georgia Tech, and yes I did study some economics–along with chemistry, physics, English, Russian, math, and German.

      Just the usual…ah…woman’s studies. 😉

Comments are closed.