“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on account of sex.“
-19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, signed 1919
While understandably and perhaps laudably rooted in the liberal ideal of equality under the law, universal human rights, and the like, the granting of the female vote in 1919 via the 19th Amendment has birthed untold social, cultural, and political ills.
After more than a century, that the experiment has objectively failed becomes progressively more manifest.
(*A caveat: Of course, many women — millions out of an American population of at least 150 million — are wise and rational beings who can be counted on to make wise and rational voting decisions. But we’re playing the statistical game here, and the statistics, as we’ll see, don’t lie.)
Hence the Armageddon Prose original petition to repeal the 19th Amendment via the Return Electoral Sanity To Our Republic (RESTOR) Act.
SIGN THE PETITION TO SUPPORT THE RESTOR ACT AND REPEAL THE 19th AMENDMENT!
First, let’s consider women’s voting priorities.
In 2022, when the Supreme Court decided to kick responsibility for abortion laws back to the states, 37% of women cited abortion rights as a top voting priority, arguably leading to the Republican upset in the midterm elections that year.
Related: HuffPo Feminist Quits Shaving to Protest for Abortion Rights
Secondary concerns that predominate among the female voting cohort include supporting mass migration, gender transitions for children, DEI, and nerfing the world with mandatory COVID masks.
Consider your personal experience: How many men have you seen parading toddlers around with tranny flags draped about them compared to women, demanding the state sanction mutilating their genitals to “express who they really are”?
Now, a brief exploration of the factors that influence such female voting behavior and the case for rescinding the 19th Amendment.
Differences in psychological makeup between genders
Women’s essential psychological disposition is one of caretaker to infant; by extension, this is, by nature, their approach to governing when given political power.
Whereas the infant/caretaker dynamic is well-suited to nurturing and growing a human, and facilitating fair play and distribution among children in a familial or community setting, when translated into political practice, wherein the government acts as mother and the populace adopts the role of infant, this arrangement is incompatible with the concept of a free people operating in the interest of rational governance.
The infant, by definition, has no agency; it is there to be cared for and directed. In a sense, the mother/infant relationship could be characterized as one of benevolent totalitarianism.
Compact published an excellent article recently covering, among other things, how “feminine patterns of behavior” provide the foundation for the ephemeral concept of “wokeness.”
Via Compact (emphasis added):
“Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently…
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.
Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition*. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite…
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.”
*The distinctions, and inherent competition, between empathy over rationality and safety over risk are perhaps the most salient inborn differences based on gender.
Take COVID, for instance, perhaps the starkest example in recent history of essential liberty taking a backseat to the ostensibly benevolent totalitarianism of safetyism.
Of course, there were larger institutional forces with their own interests driving the masking/lockdown/vaccine mandate agenda, but at the grassroots level, who were the enforcers of that agenda?
Disproportionately women, as evidenced by this study (and many more).
Why?
Because forcing everyone to wear a mask meant, as the propaganda promoted, society was “in this together” — group cohesion being the priority as accomplished by performative empathy.
When you wear a mask in public, the narrative went, you were not just doing it for yourself; it was for the benefit of the community. (Of course, both the mask and the vaccine, in the end, were shown to not prevent the spread of COVID, but the feeling of social responsibility, rather than the fact of social responsibility, was the selling point.)
The actress, best known perhaps for her championing of transgender rights, Emma Watson, demonstrates the female preoccupation with “inclusion” as the overriding priority below, transcription via Grok:
“Trans woman: “Do you feel comfortable with me using a female toilet?”
Emma Watson: “Oh my God, of course!”
Trans: “Does that depend on me having had surgery?”
Emma: “No.”
Trans: “What would you say to those who have an issue sharing a public bathroom with me?”
Emma: “Oh my goodness, that’s another human being… I understand fearing what you don’t know… but go learn, speak, look into their eyes… You can’t deny their humanity after that. Making people feel excluded is painful and awful.””
Related: Poll: Liberal Women Experience Worst Mental Health of All Demographics
On the gender-bender insanity front, which of the two genders is most moved by the argument, repeated often by proponents of child transgenderism, that the choice a parent faces vis-à-vis a “trans” child is affirmation or death, the implication being that if you don’t trans your kid, they are going to kill themselves.
Related: Biden’s Transgender Czar Threatens Child Suicide If He Can’t Trans Them
It’s not rational, but rather based on empathy and safetyism, which are significantly higher on the priority list for the female mind than the male mind.
Women’s greater susceptibility to manipulation
Another major gendered difference is women’s greater suggestibility — meaning their tendency to absorb information that is suggested to them and accept it as actionable.
Studies have found that women score higher in the personality trait of suggestibility than men, defined by an openness to receiving and accepting ideas implanted into their consciousness from outside.
Via Nature:
“Gender difference should be taken into account when considering the impact of social pressure on human behaviors. Compared to women, men tend to be less persuadable and conforming in social pressure contexts and they also show greater retaliatory aggressions when they confront social threat. Empirical studies investigating gender differences in group discussions have reported that men generally exhibit a greater amount of disagreement with other person’s position and persist in their own opinion, whereas women typically engage in higher amounts of agreement and positive social behaviors. Women are also considered to possess stronger interpersonal sensitivity and more concern about interpersonal harmony than men.”
Empathy over rationality in the hierarchy of values
Observing the fundamental reality that women prioritize empathy over rationality, as anyone who has interacted significantly with the fairer sex has likely noticed, is not sexist, nor is it a trope, nor is it some bigoted relic of the fabled “patriarchy.”
Continuing via Compact:
“If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control…
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women**, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.”
**Hence the “believe all women” mantra of the #MeToo movement.
The female vote: An experiment without precedent
Continuing via Compact:
“The Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses…
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?…
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.”
The diagnosis of the problem is correct, but the solution Andrews offers — to simply stop enforcing the social engineering schemes that have facilitated the female takeover of every major institution — falls short for many reasons, not least of which is that the genie is already out of the lamp. The institutions have already been fully, or nearly fully, feminized, and the culture subverted.
The only true solution — at least in the political realm — is to repeal women’s suffrage and unburden themselves from the suffering they have foisted on themselves and society at large with their misguided, albeit often well-intentioned, political behavior.
