Nature has given women so much power
that the law has very wisely given them little.

                                                                                                                           Samuel Johnson

Women have vigorously complained that the laws have discriminated against them for years. Yet, they never seem to need to reconcile this allegation with the fact that our legal system discriminates such that 16 men are sent to prison for every woman. To be just, there should be equal constraint on both sexes, a concept which in turn is linked to the idea of equal rights, for if I have a right to something, other people are restrained from interfering with with my right. The fact that the overwhelming majority of prison inmates are men implies that most legal constraints, or laws, target men, and that in return, women have more rights by virtue of the fact that more restraints are placed on men.

The greatest natural concern of men is for their freedom, which they are forced to secure through legislation. Women focus more on legal protection, much of which they obtain through creating laws that restrain the use of physical force by men, that is, they restrict men's freedom to use their natural means of power; they also create laws that coerce men to provide for them. Basically then, men want to be free and women want to oppress and enslave, although, lacking any strong sense of freedom or justice women fail to see things that way - or just care not to.

Have you ever heard one of those feminists who say that criminal violence against women by men should be regarded as hate crimes? One has to wonder if these women ever reflect seriously on their own words, for if they did, they would realize that a "hate crime" is the act of a powerless individual - powerful individuals create "hate legislation." If long ago a black man had attacked his master there is no doubt that this could have been codified as a "hate crime," but would it necessarily mean that this man had done something morally wrong or unjust? No you might say, because the black man had no other means at his disposal for countering what in our day is supposed to be a great injustice, that is - slavery.

Men in America today are legally denied their natural ways of countering the power of women, their wealth is stripped away through taxation, alimony, and child support, and if they try to run, the feminist state will track them down like fugitive slaves - or "deadbeat dads" as they call them. The same arguments that were used to perpetuate the slavery of blacks is used today by women to enslave men, namely, that without the income produced by their slaves or "deadbeats" they would be financially destitute.

Let us look at the interrelationship of power and voting to understand why only men voted in the past. Before civil society began, men were controlled by "The law of the jungle"; those exerting superior physical force out competed, and often killed, those with inferior abilities. As populations expanded and men were forced to live in closer proximity to each other much of their right to use physical force was transferred to the government. To the extent this was done voluntary, and therefore justly, those men then partook of this power transferred to the government by use of their vote. Physical force is the domain of men, that is the fundamental reason why they should 3+vote and not women. Women never transferred their natural advantages to the government, their power is still used privately, to allow them to exercise 53% of the voting power is to allow them to exercise greater use of physical force than men. Rousseau wrote how some of the feminists of his time being "not content to secure their rights, lead them to usurp ours; for to make women our superior in all all the qualities proper to her sex, and to make her our equal in all the rest, what is this but to transfer to the women the superiority which nature has given to her husband?" The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote is one of the greatest usurpations in the history of the human race, yet there are few people living in this country who perceive things that way, such has been the persuasive power of women.

For those of you that who have managed to retain a little common sense, who still have even a few brain cells that have not been obliterated by feminist propaganda, I will ask you to consider two things. First, if women were "powerless" as feminists claim by not being allowed to vote, and men being oppressive patriarchs and opposed to this right, then how did women manage to acquire this right in the first place? Does not the fact that they did acquire the right suggest that they had means at their disposal more powerful than what men had to oppose them, and does not that imply that women already possessing greater power should not have had their power added to by acquiring the right to vote? Secondly, if the sole, or overwhelming criteria for acquiring one's due from society was from the right to vote, than the condition of children should be lower than the worst slave who ever walked in shackles upon the face of the earth. For not only do they not vote, but they even lack any basic measure of physical strength or knowledge in order to feed and defend themselves; in the feminist way of thinking they should be completely helpless and die of starvation shortly after birth. Nothing of course could be further from the truth, children are not only well taken care of, but they are often afforded protections that even adults do not possess.

To understand how this can be we observe that in the hierarchical chain of human society, children stand much in the same relation to their mothers as women do to their husbands. Whoever is in need of another to supply their material wants has emotional, and other immaterial power, to compel the delivery of their requirements. Plutarch tells us that the Athenian Themistocles once told his son that he was the the most powerful person in Greece because "The Athenians command the rest of Greece, I command the Athenians, your mother commands me, and you command your mother."

The idea of an indirect control in the government has been examined before; following the passage of the Stamp Act upon the American colonies, a debate ensued concerning the meaning and applicability of the term "virtual representation." Daniel Dulany, a Maryland attorney, said he understood the term to apply where "the electors .. are inseparably connected in their interests with the nonelectors,"" the security of the nonelectors against oppression is that their oppression will fall also upon the electors," however, he doubted its applicability to the given situation; "There is not that intimate and inseparable relation between the electors of Great Britain and the inhabitants of the colonies, which must inevitably involve both in the same taxation." Without even addressing the compensatory feminine powers women have over men, how, in a society where marriage is the norm, and as it is in all healthy modern societies, could men - say, tax products used by women without it affecting them, as they bear the responsibility for supporting their wives? Why would women want to be burdened with the responsibility of maintaining good government if their husbands are doing it for them already? Giving women the vote was part and parcel to the breakdown of the family we have been seeing, where women no longer look at the family as the paramount concern but of themselves, hence they need to vote separately from their husbands in order to promote their selfishness.

There is a secondary reason why only men have been permitted to vote, and that is because they are more endowed with the faculty of reason which justice is derived from. Kant writes is his "Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysics Of Morals" that; "reason issues its commands unyielding, without promising anything to the inclinations, and, as it were, with disregard and contempt for these claims."  Inclinations are synonymous with personal interest, hence, one who acts completely rationally or justly does not act for himself, but promotes an abstract principle which favors no one in particular, or alternately, everyone equally. A rational structure forms a hierarchy like a pyramid, there is balance around the apex so that one segment doesn't carry more weight than another, throwing the balance off and causing the structure to collapse. The same is true of society, if one segment of the population is treated unjustly, if it carries more than its fair share of the weight, then there is inner turmoil and society will collapse. The scales of justice are like the pyramid, the top of the scale is like the apex, the scales like opposite sides of the pyramid, things must balance in order to be stable. The leaders of a just society form the apex and hold the scales of justice in order to ensure justice and not to benefit themselves. Unfortunately, those who lack a sense of justice do not see things in this manner, lacking the ability to think logically they project their emotions and inclinations on others, and where they accuse others of injustice, what they are really telling you is that they would be unjust if they were in the same position.



Written by Thomas Pollock aka Spartacus, Editor of The Men's Tribune                                First Posted: 1998       Last Update: 12Feb 99