Should Women Vote?

Before I begin to explore the question entitled, “Should women vote?”, I believe, as a practical matter, we – the Dissident Right – have no choice but to encourage our women with similar moral and political values to vote along side us.  We are outnumbered in an increasingly degenerating democratic battlespace.  As such, it is important to invest our female counterparts in this struggle for survival.  A functioning Western Civilization is literally on trial around the world.  Our Bolshevik opposition has effectively stacked the “courts” with a favorable jury (minorities salivating at the chance to pounce upon Whites) and a favorable judge (the System – from the President to local law enforcement).  We need every vote we can get – and I still do not believe we are voting our way out of this mess. 

That stated, the question I posed is not whether we need our women to vote, rather it is an exploration as to whether or not women should have ever been enfranchised with the vote in the first place.  This argument generally falls along questions of temperament (i.e., the exploitation of a woman’s emotional and empathetic nature) or secular practicality (i.e., if women contribute X to society, they should have a say in such matters).  However, few take a spiritual or societal approach to this subject.  I believe that the very introduction of female voting has led to a rapid disintegration in morality, not because women feel sympathy for homosexuals or wear pants to boardrooms.  Rather, the introduction of women into voting has devalued the God-given male-female dynamic by which the male is designed to be the Head-of-the-Household. 

By inviting female decision making into a co-equal power arrangement, we – Men – surrender moral authority.  In so doing, we invite ungodly political positions into society by virtue of our complacence.  In effect, we “took a knee” and surrendered our role.  Throughout the Bible, that has almost always come with some form of Godly punishment.  But there is more to unpack then simply the ramifications of defying God – there are temporal consequences upon social order originating at the family level.

By welcoming potential divisions on political matters into male-female relations, we invite social cracks into the foundation of Western Civilization: the nuclear family.  Rather than a male voting for the best interests of his family, and the wife supporting that decision, women’s suffrage invites the potential for conflict that can resonate amongst the children.  This undermines the need for parents to be seen as a monolithic bloc, uniformly committed to the preservation and elevation of the rest of the family.  Given a visual of divergent opinions on that which is best, children will often gravitate away from the disputing parents and entertain political opinions from seemingly more informed or articulate alternative sources.  Often, these opinions come from outside of the home – such as teachers, professors, friends, and media personalities they admire.  This quickly leads to a breakdown on a core matter of the functioning West: family unit integrity and a disciplined approach toward elevating the clan.  It was never this way until recently – and the results are readily apparent. 

Today, as stated earlier, we unfortunately live in a democratic-republic.  That was never the vision of the American Founding Fathers.  They sought tight restrictions on voting to ensure sober-minded individuals with a stake in the status quo voted for representatives who only convened on matters of national significance.  In other words, the original republican (little ‘R’) vision was one in which individuals tied to their home geographies (Congressional Representatives and Senators) and wedded to the often-competing needs of those localities were the core of representation.  These men met when serious matters such as a national budgetary assignment or war was in question.  Neither Congress nor the Senate were originally envisioned to be full time jobs.  Yet, in an environment through which everything has now devolved into a committee review and a need for a vote before any decision is made, we find ourselves in a country guided by emotional mandates instead of restrained thought.  This is an effeminate management process.  Men make decisions and execute for the good of the tribe – we always have.

I believe the origins of this destructive democratic disorder lies not in the 19^th Amendment (women’s universal suffrage) but the 15^th Amendment, which provided all races the guaranteed right of the vote.  The South, for its part, was led by Reconstruction governments and, consequently, had no genuine say in the matter of this broadening of the electorate that was never envisioned by the slave-owning White Founding Fathers.  That stated, once it became law, it allowed the inclusion of an easily manipulated, less informed electorate to augment the voting numbers of more radical 19^th Century Social Justice Warriors. 

By the time Southerners reclaimed their (marginal) self-governance, many of the destructive policies had been implemented in the United States by radical Yankees, with the help of ill-informed, black voters – many of whom were former slaves with a nominal, if any, education.  For its part, the South rightfully implemented rules to curb such easily exploited voter participation in the form of literacy tests. As an example, viewing a voter registration form from Mississippi between 1955 – 1965 (prior to the revocation of such tests), the simple questions seem pretty reasonable.  The forms asked questions such as citizenship status, occupation, and the date of the form.  Obviously, the hurdle was the ability to read the questions.  While black activists consider the form to have been a barrier to black participation in voting, the literacy tests disqualified a host of ill-informed voters, including poor Whites and many women, of whom many prior to 1965 had the role of mother and homemaker, in which literacy was an afterthought in poorer homes.

The literacy tests, and by extension other methods used to discourage uninformed voter participation, was clearly within the scope of the original vision of the Founding Fathers.  After all, sober voters understand the consequences of their decision-making votes.  An ignorant electorate can be emotionally manipulated, especially when it is prefaced in self-interest.  This is how we get eighteen-year-old girls voting on matters of profound strategic consequences at the direction of such brilliant minds as Miley Cyrus or Cardi B.

Returning to the original question I am exploring, however, the majority of modern women are educated to the extent that they can read and determine political positions.  This is where race, age, faith, and gender diverge along fault lines.  Older White women tend to vote for conservative political positions; black women tend to vote, overwhelmingly, for leftist positions.  The younger the White female, the more likely she is to vote for leftist positions.  As a practical matter, however, White women split at approximately 50% – Left/Right, negating the net effect of the largest single voting bloc in the country. Meanwhile, black women vote at rates at nearly 90-95% leftist.  Hispanic women vote at about 70-30, Left/Right.  Asian women vote at about 80/20, Left/Right.  Thus, White women, a demographic that has a plurality in the United States, become a net-zero, allowing a compounded leftist gain from other female demographic cohorts.  This is the impact of the 15^th Amendment on full display.

Again, however, this speaks directly to the heart of the spiritual abrogation of male authority.  If men maintained their hierarchical role in the male-female dynamic, White women would follow the White male Head-of-Household lead.  If men had not subordinated their political leadership, codified in Genesis 3:16 and reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Peter 3:1 (among many others Biblical verses), as well as throughout natural history, then the age cohort would be a non-factor.  Since White men vote at ratios of nearly 70-30, Right/Left, any female vote should reflect the political priorities of the White male Heads-of-Household.  If White women voted 70-30, Right/Left, conservative positions would always win politically.

The loss of that leadership position, however, opens the door for younger White females to support deleterious positions predicated on emotional appeals in direct contravention of their father’s wishes.  The fact is, they learn how to reject the leadership of their fathers from their “co-equal” mothers. The symbolism of “one person, one vote” reinforces the visual and cultural narrative that women are wholly independent and not adjoined to their male counterparts, let alone led by them.  This opens the door to making political decisions as an individual and not as a family unit for the betterment of the tribe.

This is where the problem with women voting comes full circle, in both the practical sense and subsequent spiritual consequences.  By surrendering patriarchal dominance in a political order that was originally designed to minimize mass participation in order to protect the status quo and make changes a function of informed, thoughtful deliberation, we opened the doorway to the disintegration of the family.  Once women and men became indistinguishable in the political sense, the very concept of allied political values at the family level became one of subjective opinion.  Sound leadership was stripped from political decision making at its most local level – the family unit.  Thus, if mom felt it is better for her daughter to have the right to an abortion and dad felt differently, the offsetting votes empowered others to step in and make the decision for the family, including the radicalized daughter.

Expanded out more logically, the multitude of various cultural, economic, and political positions become fair game as weapons to divide the family.  A mother’s sympathy for her effeminate son… a daughter’s empathy for impoverished people… the weaponization of emotional appeals becomes one in which both male and female voters can be exploited – but they are exploited separately and with possibly conflicting positions.  Even if the conflicting position is grounded in logic, such as infrastructure spending, it is the rift that becomes the potential problem.  This is a dynamic that played significantly during the Trump campaigns and throughout the administration, whereby White men remained largely supportive of Trump, but White women who voted for the former president by a margin of approximately 55-45, Trump/Clinton, in 2016, dropped to approximately 50-50, Trump-Biden, in 2020.

Eventually, this foundational rift expands into concepts of tribal concerns and National identity.  If the break in the family dynamic allows for a revolt to occur at the ballot box, family needs become subordinated to the broader needs of a given people who do not necessarily have the best interest of the White family at heart.  Suddenly, the White father can become potentially negated by his White female “co-parent,” when he views the importance of defending the prospects of his children’s long-term options offset by the mother’s belief that “diversity” should be a goal unto itself.

Of course, this does not happen all the time.  Couples, such as my own, share many of the same beliefs.  In some ways, my wife is more conservative than me.  We discuss political issues and eventually evaluate them on the basis of that which is best for the family and our people.  Still, the invitation of a fault line into the family dynamic is by definition a threat.  That invitation is made through the devaluation of Head-of-Household status – an invitation that comes in the form of the 19^th Amendment.  Today, we see the demonic consequences of the Trojan Horse of women’s suffrage.

In sum, it is not an accident that the disintegration of Western Society almost distinctively begins with the emergence of women’s suffrage.  Since becoming the largest voting bloc (about 1945), American women have removed segregation, empowered homosexual marriage, invited transgender story hour, established social welfare programs, founded affirmative action, and lost every single war in the process.  Nationalist cohesion and identity begins at the home.  It begins with the father.  In fact, the very process of marriage proposal is a symbol of a male inviting a female to join him in marriage – and by extension, is his very first assertion of Biblical Head-of-Household status (i.e., I intend to create a family and I choose you to bear my children).  Voting, an act that was originally designed to be an act of deep sobriety and predicated on the needs of the family, has devolved into that which we have today – popularity contests led by ad hominem attacks.  I, correspondingly, conclude that women should have never been invested in the vote.  The family should vote as a single unit, and that single unit vote should be cast by the father/husband.

Unfortunately, we now need White women voters due to sheer numbers.  Thus, it is critical that we, the Dissident Right, invest White women in the same sense of Nationalism as black women currently enjoy.  Black women vote as a monolithic bloc.  That is not changing.  They know where their bread is buttered, and they know they wield immense power by voting for one party that will do the bidding of black people.  That is Black Nationalism reflected at the ballot box.  All variations of White Nationalists – be they ethnically Southern, Irish, English, Italian, etc. – should be working hard to ensure that their women see the same threat to civilization that White men do.  That begins with leadership.