Posted on: February 8, 2016 Posted by: Janet Bloomfield Comments: 0

The #WhyWomenShouldNotVote hashtag started as sort of a joke. I knew that feminists would show up, scream abuse, offer no arguments, then run away crying, because, well, that’s kind of what feminists do on Twitter. The tag was meant to spark a conversation about the differences in how men and women vote, and differences in voting priorities and preferences between the genders.

I’m hardly the only person in the world to be interested in these differences: researchers noted that in the 1996 election, had only men voted, Robert Dole would have won the election by 31 states. Instead, Bill Clinton won. By 31 states.

Having thought about the issue, prompted by many thoughtful comments and ideas, particularly from this blog, I have come to the conclusion that the hashtag isn’t a joke at all.

Women should not vote.

Before I get to the three reasons that women should not vote, let’s tackle the issue of misogyny. Does thinking women should not vote mean that I hate women? Well, no. It doesn’t. We don’t let 17 year olds vote, either, and that’s not because we hate 17 year olds. It’s not even because we think that crossing the rubicon of one’s 18th birthday automatically bestows some magical maturity and adult capacity that 17 year olds simply don’t have: it’s because 17 year olds can’t be drafted. The vote is intrinsically tied to the draft. I’ll explain in a moment why women can never be drafted, but the issue is ground zero in why women should not vote, and why denying women the vote has nothing to do with misogyny.

I won’t get away so easy with the other two reasons, but both of those reasons ultimately lead back to the draft, so I’m prepared to defend myself. Saying that women should not vote is not misogyny.

Here are my three reasons women should not vote:

  • Draft
  • Spending
  • Immigration

The draft

Commenters have noted that there are many ways for women to serve that don’t involve combat, and women can and should be drafted into those positions. I’ve even suggested a birth draft myself! The problem with these suggestions is that the draft is specifically intended to address combat positions. The draft is intended to fill landing crafts with bodies and land them at Omaha and Utah. The draft fulfills the Army’s need for cannon-fodder. The D-Day landing changed the course of history, and let me be the last person on the Earth to say those men died in vain, but they were collected by force and sacrificed to save us all. Drafting women into non-combat positions does not fulfill the basic requirements of the draft, and the imposition of those requirements is why men are allowed to vote.

Let’s assume, however, that drafting women into combat proceeds, as fairness, justice and equality demand that it should. The military has thrown all combat positions open to women, and there is no justifiable reason women should not register for the draft. Women will likely go ahead and register, but they will never be drafted, as long as they can vote. If (when?) a situation arises that activates the draft, women will immediately begin to vote for political candidates that offer them the broadest exemptions.

It will begin with pregnant women. Exemptions will pass that exclude pregnant women. They will expand to include nursing mothers. They will expand to include mothers of young children. They will expand to include mothers of multiple children. They will expand to include single mothers. They will expand until effectively, no women can be drafted. Sure, you can require women to report for duty after x amount of time has passed but women won’t vote for those requirements. They will vote to defeat them. Initiating the draft will be great for the domestic birth rate, and will lead to healthier, happier children as draft dodging will require breast-feeding, but it means that women will never face a hail of bullets only a fraction of them are ever intended to survive.

Women will moot the draft for themselves, and in doing so, moot the justification for having the vote.

Men will continue to be the only ones who must pay for freedom and security with their blood. And to paraphrase Reynolds Holding, writing for Time magazine, on why felons can’t vote, “if you aren’t willing to die for your country, you can’t claim the right to send other people to die on your behalf.”

No draft = no vote.

Women should not vote, because they will never be subject, in any meaningful way, to the draft.


Let’s take a closer look at what this chart is saying.

Government spending exploded at exactly the moment women’s suffrage occurred. Are the two things related? Many researchers say no, and posit a number of other explanations for why spending took off at precisely the moment women gained the right to vote (but not the obligation to die). An incredibly popular theory, still in use today, is Baumol’s model of unbalanced growth. Baumol theorizes that wage increases will always outstrip productivity, driving up the cost of any particular service. Productivity is always playing catch up to wage increases. Another theory is that interest groups and entrepreneurial politicians became more involved in pressuring governments to spend more (at the behest of whom, one wonders), and still others argued that society was just coming to understand that government services were a superior good.

All of these lovely ideas fall apart though, when one considers that government hasn’t always been growing and in fact, per capita government spending actually fell after WWI. You can see from the graph that government spending declined for four years in a row, before women were granted universal suffrage. 1920 happens, and wham! It takes women four years to vote spending up to the previous peak, and only 11 years to double per capita spending. What did women spend that money on? Two major initiatives supported by women: alimony laws that applied only to women, and could be enforced for the duration of a woman’s life, and Prohibition.

It’s almost funny, isn’t it? Give women power, and they take away men’s money, and their beer.

It’s like a bad sitcom. It’s also historical fact. That is what women did. And it’s what they will continue to do. In 2016, we are facing a Presidential candidate who is seriously advocating that college tuition should be ‘free’. And who are most college students? That’s right: women. They’re not populating STEM subjects (unless they involve taking care of babies or animals). They’re enrolled mostly in bullshit liberal arts degrees that provide them with no viable market skills, other than to work for the government, consuming even more resources.

Recall that women cannot be drafted. They do not think in terms of military sacrifice, because they will never vote for themselves to be sacrificed. When the money starts to run out, which department do you think women will vote to begin stripping resources from? Which department do they have the least stake in? The least ability to understand?

They will strip money from the Department of Defense.

Women will consume government resources until the state collapses. As long as women can vote, they will consume, whilst not producing those resources.

Women should not vote, because they will eventually cannibalize the military, leaving us all at the mercy of our enemies.


Women have an intense need to be seen as ‘nice’ and they have a strong collectivist bent, which is wonderful for family life, but catastrophic for national governance. We can see the effects of women wanting to be ‘nice’ in Europe. The demographics of modern Europe are downright terrifying. Ethnic European women refuse to have children, yet turn around and welcome in migrants with birth rates that will inevitably spell the end of ethnic Europeans.

This simply can’t happen. The European nuclear arsenal cannot fall into the hands of radical Islam. It’s a death sentence for all of us, and one being written by women. As long as women can vote, the great liberal civilizations built by men are going to fall. Individually, women are beginning to see the folly of their ways. The Austrian woman (herself a Serbian refugee) who told her son that Austria must take care of migrants is having some regrets after a migrant raped her son. Her ten year old son. She welcomed in the man who raped her son. Can we afford to wait for women to wake up, one by one? Are we willing to sacrifice our children to rapists while women contemplate whether being ‘nice’ is all it’s cracked up to be?

Recall again that women cannot be drafted. Blood and boots will be spilled to solve the refugee crisis. It is all but guaranteed, but it won’t be women’s blood, and it won’t be women’s feet in those boots, so why then should they get to decide how the future proceeds?

Women have had the vote in the West for almost 100 years, and all they have done is vote to destroy and destabilize the world men built for us, while protecting themselves from the blood consequences. They have voted selfishly, rapaciously, irrationally and quite possibly, irrevocably.

Women should not vote. That’s not misogyny.

It’s self-defence.

Notify of