Why ‘Votes For Women’ Has Failed

It is often touted that where women are emancipated, societies are wealthier. Belying that only wealthy societies may afford to emancipate women in the first place, this correlation is taken as proof that women’s liberation drives prosperity and, by fallacious extension, that female suffrage has been a success. Empathy in judicial processes and compassion in the hunt – not luxuries that every society can afford – have now become virtues with which the democratic juggernaut selectively admonishes its detractors’ ‘human rights’ records.

We must face that, over the last century, the West’s most radical social enterprise has snowballed into a dangerous global experiment. We are spreading our errors abroad even as we are hamstrung at home. Much as philosophers and politicians hate to hear it, however, society finds its balance regardless of any recourse to reason or ideology. Let’s delve in to our trajectory from, and back to, the natural order.

The dangerous means which neolithic hunters supplied the village required an adversarial process of discernment. If those opposed to a plan in abstract could nevertheless claim credit for its success on completion, the group would learn nothing from its calculated risks. We must stake our ideas with our own welfare and social standing and women will nod sagely as I iterate: it is only worth a man having convictions if they serve to prove him by disagreement with at least some of those around him.

The same process can not be employed in the nurture of dependent children. It is necessary for consensus operators of home and hearth to seek social agreement as an end in itself, suppressing a meritocracy of ideas to allow distribution of resources according to collective need rather than individual merit.

Lo and behold, modern behavioural studies conclude that women are more agreeable than men. In extremis, what is actually true must trump what is conventionally true for men. For women, it is exactly the other way around.

Does anyone really believe we have shrugged off our evolutionary history in the democratic era?

In the public forum, as in the neolithic village, women vote for collective ends while men vote for collective means. And there’s a problem with that.

Despite the casualties, a disproportionate bulk of every society’s resources are still generated by a minority of its men. We can surmise from the evolutionary experience (and straightforward observation), that it is generally better for women to attach themselves to those men than to become accountable for those risky decisions themselves. There are virtually no female bitcoin millionaires, for instance, because bitcoin had no societal endorsement until it was already ‘working’ and required a degree of personal risk to the early speculators. By the same token, there are also fewer female gambling addicts and bankrupts. Women who do ‘cross the line’ and speak out against the shibboleths of their society are much rarer (and braver), than men who do the same.

Yet our idolatry of numerical majorities has enabled the suffragette movement to put itself so far beyond criticism that it is now easier to deny sexual dimorphism itself than to acknowledge the inevitable collapse it has caused in ballot democracy. How long can we afford the luxurious belief that unanimity settles what is right?

My opinions about votes for women are the same as everybody’s opinions about votes for women!


Where women march through the civic institutions, so follows their fear of conflicting ideas. This narrows the ‘Overton Window,’ thence the parameters of permissible thought, thence possible thought, thence productive capacity. Once a theory or idea can be quashed simply by recourse to social approval, it is not worth a man’s trouble to get involved. Productive, discerning, men start dropping out of public life.

The trouble is not – as sometimes proposed – a matter of ‘women vote socialist and men vote conservative’. Men would have turned France Communist in 1946. Rather, it is a creeping societal inhibition in tabling measures that are proportional to voters’ perception of circumstances. Eventually, convictions become irrelevant at the ballot box because the predominant political parties in nearly every late-stage democracy are distinguished only by a narcissism of small differences for appearances’ sake. 

At its centenary, the universal suffrage project has reached this stage, with the vote wielded as consensus keepers would like: a token of a civic concern rather than a means of affecting change.

Where a maverick is elected (it is almost always the male vote which tips the balance), the institutions of the managerial state (academia, media and so forth), hold forth to correct the result and oust that leader as fast as possible.

It may be true that women hinder relative extremism, but we are no more protected from actual extremism than were those early pioneers of this radical democratic experiment: the USSR and Weimar Germany. In the end, such societies will only enable you to vote for one thing: preservation of the political hegemony at all costs, until bust.

Worse than the feminised collapse of reason and accountability, however, is having to observe the conventions by which our culture battles the shadow of its saboteur.

Denying our sources of wealth, order and justice, we are told that women are the primary victims of war, that any ascendent society must be unfair and cruel, that any social problem can be traced to a failure to enforce equality of outcome, that Lehman brothers wouldn’t have crashed if they had been ‘Lehman Sisters’ (true – they wouldn’t have existed), that aptitude in any field must be endorsed by certified credentialists and so on. We even devise novel pathologies and prescribe mind-altering drugs to conform people to the behavioural patterns that these narratives require to be true of the population. The most pitiful victims of this ideology are often men who attempt to signal compliance with its virtues and end up in a self-righteous fury when they discover that, in spite of everything, nature cannot make a man desirable to a women for his civic virtues once those virtues are feminine.

No one seeking the public vote dares question half the electorate, so the virtue of universal suffrage continues to be celebrated like the emperor with no clothes. Yet we have arrived at a critical point of diminishing returns. The social cost of upholding the deceptions now exceed the diminishing rewards of living in a democracy.

If this hypothesis won’t be proven in discourse, then it will be bourn out amid the realisation that the vote is finally powerless to affect governance for anyone and the managerial state will collapse, leaving in its wake several competing theories of its demise. 

Happily, order will re-emerge regardless of whether we take the lesson.

Human ecology is cleverer than the high-minded ideals by which we seek to conquer it. Civic power will return to oligarchs and militias who will enforce enough general order to protect their own interests. The internet will make oligarchs’ job easier but, ironically, one of their greatest weapons in managing public consensus will be…

…the female vote base.

I assume there are no women still reading at this point, so I say to you now: the collapse is coming and it’s more than your job’s worth to resist it.

READ NEXT: Inside the DeFi Mafia