Repeal the 19th Amendment

Perhaps you have already seen this video. I heard about it on talk radio as I was driving. It made me revisit a question which, in my mind at least, I would have thought was settled and resolved: the question of female suffrage.

It is perfectly in keeping with the sweet and feminine nature of the fairer sex that they should have perfect faith in their chosen husband, lord and master. It is part of female psychology.

Alas, in the modern day, many an unwed or divorced woman attaches this perfect faith to Caesar, who makes the husbandly promises to love and honor her in sickness and health for better or worse.

It is perfectly in keeping with the sweet and feminine nature of the fairer sex that they should wish to care for the poor and downtrodden, and support a man who promises to protect them from the woes and tribulation of life.

Alas, the lies of socialism, which promises wealth, peace and happiness for the downtrodden and delivers misery and self-destruction, if not mass graves, are too obviously lies for anyone but a fatuous girl in love to overlook. But when a girl is in love, she overlooks the lies and believes them. So here.

It is perfectly in keeping with the sweet and feminine nature of the fairer sex that they should lack the ability to have a conversation with a Southern Gentleman, because we grown men are often forceful and direct in our speech, and, in the modern day, we were told it was condescending and patriarchal if not downright insulting to be careful of the delicate feelings of a lady.

The deal was, we treat you like ladies if you act like ladies. You said you wanted equality instead, that you were tough enough and aggressive enough and competitive enough to play in all of our rough and tumble masculine sports, and enter the Man’s World and get scarred and beaten and toughened, and that no one had to look after you.

Well, we did not break the deal. Women did.

Or, rather, feminists who hate femininity with a passion hard to understand. Not real women.

So, for better or worse, it is not in keeping with the sweet and feminine nature of the fairer sex that they should be attracted to law abiding men over rogues and blackguards, nor is it in their nature to think that abstract laws should be obeyed merely for the sake of obedience, nor that laws should be enforced impartially. Socialism, and the filthy liars and caitiffs that support socialism, make a natural lure for minds that are too sweet and feminine to handle brutal logic and stark facts and direct confrontation. So here.

Politically speaking, a woman must don the attitudes and values typical of a man, or, better yet, a Southern Gentleman, to appreciate, understand and support the laws and policies needed to keep a nation safe and strong, hash, righteous, just and honorable, and feared abroad. She needs to gird on a sword and ready herself for the duel in order to enter the voting booth.

Keep in mind what makes a duel different from a back alley brawl. It has rules, it has a winner and a loser, and the loser, if he lives, concedes with good grace, and the victor accepts the concession with good grace.

Matters of honor and chivalry are, with no exception known to me, either utterly incomprehensible to womenfolk, or utterly scorned as impractical and nonsensical. On the other hand, I have seen women who do indeed grasp and support the concept of being a good sport, of neither whining when you lose nor vaunting when you when, but I have yet to meet a woman who grasps and approves of the concept of chivalry in combat, when something real and desperate is at stake, or who grasps the concept of fighting for honor, when something imponderable is at stake.

Whether there are biological and neurochemical reasons for the aversion of women to chivalry or not, does not matter for the present discussion: but it is merely a fact of experience that this is so. If you doubt this point, poll the women you know and ask them.

Because that point should not be controversial. The great boast of the feminist movement is that they dismissed chivalry both in war and peace as needless if not counterproductive.

The controversial point I raise is this: the people who do not understand chivalry need to be protected by those who do, because chivalry is the only civilizing force keeping wars from devolving into total war, and keeping law from devolving into mere opportunism and oppression, and keeping politics from devolving into mere realpolitik, a concept so barbaric and un-Roman that there is no English word for it, only a German one.

The controversial point I raise is this: At its root, the concept of democracy, namely, the concept of abiding by the outcome of a vote rather than trusting in the virtue of a particular personal leader, is a chivalrous concept: it is the idea of being willing to lose with grace even when something paramount is at stake, and being willing to win with grace, clasping hands and loving as brothers even those who voted the other way on a grave matter of life and death for the nation.

Gentleman can have a democracy, or rustic workingmen who have the sense of fairplay enough to abide by the outcome of a vote and to embrace the other faction as brothers after the voting is over.

That is, the men must put aside their personal loyalties and friends in order to embrace the more abstract and wider group. This is never done out of a sense of emotion: it is question of honor, of doing something because cold reason says so, of doing something because you gave your word.

The particularly feminine glory of putting their friends and family first, above all abstraction and promises, in order for women to function in a democracy, must be set aside. The women, in order to use the vote and not abuse it, must be brave, and behave in a fashion typically unfeminine by traditional notions of feminine.

And they must shake hands and say “Well played; good game; you won fair and square” if they are in the minority.

I assume no feminist will regard this as controversial: it was the great boast of feminist argument that femininity is deleterious to female liberty, and can and should be put aside, and that to deny women the vote on this ground is an injustice.

They said they could (and, if my memory serves, the prior generation of somewhat more sober feminists made good on the promise) act with chivalry, decency and dignity in the political realm, and shake hands with the winners without whining and shake hands with the loser without vaunting.

Now: is it reasonable to assume the young lady in the video will shake hands with the Southern Gentlemen with whom she spoke, those of us who want a border and a nation?

Because she accuses us of being racist, which is the one accusation Morlocks accuse and accuse and accuse everyone with, and it is the one sin in their peculiar cult belief that has no forgiveness and no reconciliation.

After the vote, will she make a reconciliation with us? How will she treat us with compassion and dignity if her side wins, since she cannot even bring herself to write down the words expressing the thoughts our side thinks? And how if her side loses?

After the vote, will she obey the President the majority elects, and be loyal to the nation governed by those votes?

That would also take courage and honor.

She has none. Even talking to us, even knowing we exist, makes her cry. She is not even able to write down the hard, horrible things the Republicans and Southerners said about enforcing existing emigration laws.

In her mind, that makes us think they are not human, and no human with sense and feeling can hear that without crying. In her mind, any differing opinion from her nutcase socialism and even more nutcase anti-white bigotry is stupider than a brick wall.

It hurt her feelings to talk to people outside the padded cell of her safe space.

The gentlemen have to look after the ladies and protect them. Because who wants to see a defenseless young girl cry?

Someone needs to look after this frail young maiden. She is so upset, or presenting herself as being so upset, at the mere fact that some people are Republicans who believe in law and order, that she is reduced to infantile and illogical displays of emotion.

Why should this precious, weeping snowflake, this paragon of feminine delicacy and fineness of nerves, be granted the privilege and hard duty of voting?

She is too feminine for the task, for the hardship, and for the demands of it.

Now, as best I can tell, the mothers and grandmothers of this current generation were hardy enough to vote, and tried successfully to be masculine enough to exercise the grim power of the franchise. As I recall, they voted in Democrat leaders who used the draft to send the young men to war overseas, a war to whose bloody duties their sex was not drafted.

But when the feminists stopped pleading to be allowed to enter the rough and tumble of the Men’s World, and started demanding that we make the world safe for women and children, padding all corners and covering all exposed lightsockets, and acting as the angels do to clear away every stone in the path of life lest a woman dash her delicate foot against it, then cowardice became the norm of this society.

Look at the blubbering face of his poor young woman.

She is a coward.

She is overawed by fear of speaking to men who want to preserve the country from illegal inundation of foreigners and enemies. Her fear turns to hate and scorn, and she mocks the Gentleman of the South for thinking we won the Civil War, which, if you recall, was fought by now-dead Gentleman of the South, Democrat to a Man, against the Union forces commanded by Mr. Lincoln, a Republican.

And, of course, all the Colleges and the intelligentsia and most of all the Press applaud and agree not with me, but with her: the Republican form of government and the orderly rule of law, including enforcement of laws duly passed about immigration and deportation, requires men of character to uphold it. In an representative form of government, some times one loses the vote, and one agrees, like a good sport, like a gentleman, to abide by the outcome nonetheless.

That requires good character. That requires courage.

But anyone who needs a safe space and a trigger warning before she talks to a Southern Gentleman is a coward: a craven, mewling, puking, sad, dank, damp, spineless, worthless coward.

If it were a man. Girls are allowed to cry and cower, because it is cute, and we gentlemen are supposed to protect them.

But women and naturally less suited for war and conflict than men. If the vote were restricted solely to men, perhaps the public debate over public laws would make fighting wars and fighting crime its primary, or even its only, order of business. Perhaps all these other things, housecleaning the environment, mothering the poor, schoolmarming the schools, would be done privately, not by the government.

Perhaps if women did not vote, they could see to the environment, the schools, and the poor through the institutions of the Church, which are better suited to charitable activity and feminine compassion than the hard and harsh swords and balances of townhall.

The Nanny State only exists in nations where all the Nannies were given a vote.