Why Women’s Suffrage Destroys Democracy – Investigating TFH’s Claim

The Fifth Horseman (TFH) is one of the Manosphere’s most prominent and insightful writers. He is the author of the now famous ‘Misandry Bubble‘. One of the claims he has often made is that female suffrage inevitably destroys democracy. Concretely he posits:

Democracy means that politicians gain power by giving feminists what they claim to want. Also, while men vote for what benefits all people, women vote for what benefits women only. This is also what makes religious institutions feminist, when the country they reside in happens to be a democracy.

That is why democracy, over time, means a two-parent family erodes away. Democracy, thus has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state. No other outcome is possible after 3-4 generations of female suffrage.

I share his opinion and as such have decided to look into to the matter and try to dig up some research to back up this claim. And interestingly enough there are a few studies that – taken together – would corroborate his thesis.

Firstly, we need to adress the question of female own group preference. Common sense alone would strongly suggest that is the case. In social settings, in wartime, in work and in emergencies women (and by extension society) look at men for support and sacrifice. Arguably, this expectation of male disposability is so entrenched that people oftentimes aren’t even *aware* of it any more. ‘Women and children first‘ is a rallying cry that was uttered not just on the Titanic in 1912 but also after the ‘Costa Concordia’ sunk in 2012. In fact there was widespread outrage that men dared to look out for themselves first during the Costa Concordia Incident. It was venomously bemoaned in this discussion of whining White Knights. Anyways, if there was any remaining doubt as to the claim of women having an owngroup preference it is settled by this study:

Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Secondly, we need to analyze the relationship of women’s suffrage and the expansion of the state sector. Is it just a coincidence that the state sector in *all* countries with female suffrage started to dramatically expand after the 1920s (i.e. the begin of female suffrage)? If we look at the US, the UK, Germany, France and all the other western countries we see a remarkable trend: in all these countries the state sector was ever increasingly expanded and the tax rate dramatically increased over time. There are *no exceptions*. There is no democratic country with female suffrage that has not behaved in this manner. As such it seems highly likely that female suffrage tends to expand the scope of governmental intervention into erstwhile private affairs. Notice also the *fact* that during male only suffrage in these exact same countries the government sector tended to be small and taxes tended to be low while free market competition and individual agency tended to be maximized. Notice also that the *golden era* of economic progress was in the later 19th Century (i.e. *before* female suffrage).

Further corroborating this is a study I have found that unambiguously indicates that female suffrage automatically leads to dramatically more governmental intervention. In its own words:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

Finally, I have found one more tidbit that is relevant to the issue at hand. It is the fact that women in aggregate have a lower, more superficial grasp of politics than men do. And this is the case regardless of feminist policies, female empowerment or other measures. This study here conclusively proves that women know less about politics than men do in *all the 10 sample countries*. From the Guardian article that discusses foresaid study:

Women know less about politics regardless of gender equality, according to a survey by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

The report focused on ten nations, both developed and developing, where men and women were asked questions about domestic and international news. Despite the diversity of the ten sample countries – Australia, Canada, Colombia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, the UK, and the US – women answered fewer questions correctly than men in every country.

10,000 participants took part in the study, which tested their knowledge of broadcast, print and web journalism. They were asked a combination of questions based on hard and soft news reports including recent international events. The hard news questions pertained to topics such as national unemployment, while soft news related to sports personalities and celebrity scandals. The level of gender equality in the nations surveyed was based on the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index ratings.

Professor James Curran, Director of the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre at the University of London, was surprised to find that gaps in political knowledge are wider in countries that have done the most to promote gender equality. These gender gaps in Norway, the UK and the US are as large, or larger than gaps in South Korea and Japan. Women’s scores in the UK, the US, and Canada were more than 30% lower on average than men, whereas in Greece, Italy and Korea, women’s average score was only 20% lower. The UK is positioned at 18/135 in the WEF gender equality rankings, while Korea is placed at 108.



If we now take all these findings together and consider that a.) women have an owngroup preference (i.e. vote for their own, exclusive interests), b.) enjoy furthering their exclusive interests by expanding the state sector (thus transferring wealth from men to women via the government as proxy) as well as valuing state expansion intrinsically (because women prefer security over freedom) and c.) have a substantially lesser and more superficial grasp of politics and a tendency to focus on ‘fancy antics and faces rather than facts’ the conclusion is inevitable that women destroy democracy.

Why is this?

1.) Due to their own group preference women vote far more homogenously than men do. Essentially, the party that bribes women the most gets the (majority) female vote (there are always outliers). So politicians have an *incentive* to tailor their politics towards female interests at the expense of men and society at large and long term orientation.

2.) Moreover, it is the very nature of these bribes that continuously expand the state sector which – in turn – increasingly asphyxiates individual freedom and agency. Thus a vicious circle is set in motion that lets from democracy via “pink socialism” ultimately to totalitarianism. Because democracy cannot exist without liberty and liberty cannot exist without individual rights and agency (something increasingly removed by female voting).

3.) Finally, this dynamic – the devolution from democracy to tyranny – is expedited and augmented by women’s limited grasp of politics and essentially short time orientation. If women do not understand the background and details of complex political issues and, more importantly, also don’t care about the content because they are more focused on the superfical ‘razzle dazzle’ (the Obama Effect) they are more easily conned by unscrupulous politicians that have, of course, their own agenda as well.

Any country that thus gives women the vote is *inevitably* doomed to devolve into tyranny ere long. There is no other possibility. This is a sad conclusion but unfortunately I believe it to be God’s honest truth.


Rudman L.A., Gudman S.A. (2004) : “Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?“. Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA.

Lott, John R., Kenny, Lawrence W. (1999) : “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, no. 6, pt. 1

Economic and Social Research Council (2011): “Media System, Political Context and Informed Citizenship: A Comparative Study

24 comments on “Why Women’s Suffrage Destroys Democracy – Investigating TFH’s Claim

  1. gunner451 says:

    I would somewhat agree with your conclusion but not entirely. Women suffrage does indeed do all that you have documented but the effect is simply to accelerate the destruction of a Democracy already in it’s death throws. Further I would argue that women’s suffrage is simply one of the signs of a Democracy already in the later stages of decline. For example in the US right around the turn of the 20th century the progressive movement gained power and quickly and radically changed the US constitution in a number of very significant ways that basically ensured it’s eventual destruction. The following amendments were enacted BEFORE women had the right to vote in most States:

    16th (ratified 1913) Federal income tax, probably the biggest impediment to freedom is the ability of the government to extract ever larger amounts of money from it’s citizens

    17th (ratified 1913) Direct election of Senators by popular vote, basically killed the ability of the States to ensure that their interests were adequately represented at the federal level.

    18th (ratified 1919 repealed 1933) America’s first “war on drugs” was started with Prohibition and was used to violate all sorts of freedoms before people had enough and got rid of it.

    19th (ratified 1920) Gave women the right to vote and was the signal that the decline was about to start accelerating.

    As can be seen the progressive movement was what set us on the path to destruction with giving women the vote as simply another sign post on the highway. All civilizations/empires eventually decline and collapse (there are several good studies on this with the apparent average life span of most empires being around 250 years according to Sir John Glubb), the form of government really doesn’t matter much as the characteristics/stages all appear to be the same.

    • I would agree with you in that women’s suffrage was not the only dynamic that lead to the expansion of the state sector. As with many other issues as well, it was a multicausal dynamic. That said, what evidence do you have that these other dynamics you speak of had a similar impact than what I outlined?

      • gunner451 says:

        Not sure what “evidence” you are looking for other than what I have provided. I’m not aware of any studies attempting to tease out the contributions of the various progressive movement factions to the growth and centralization of the government.

  2. Dean says:

    Talk about fallacies. An example: Claim that governments expanded after 1920 due to suffrage. Fact: Government expansion started in Germany under Otto Von Bismark as a way of undercutting support for the Socialist Party (SPD). In France, UK, and US expansion of government started prior to 1920 under the leadership of either Fabian Socialists (UK and France) and Progressives (US).

    • As far as I know, I didn’t make the claim that governmental expansion occurred *exclusively* because of women’s suffrage but rather that it was one of the most pivotal reasons for governmental expansion.

      Moreover, Bismark’s social reforms at the start were a comparatively minor afair and even more minor were the social expansions of France, the UK and US prior to the 1920s.

      Moreover, Bismark’s policies should be taken as a special case because these transpired in a comparatively undemocratic system (Prussian Constitutionalism) that was installed on a German population that was – at that time – already thinking in relatively liberal terms (as demonstrated by the 1848 revolution).

      So in a sense Bismark’s social reforms were a response – and a minimal response at that – to a unique political situation in Germany.

      Apart from that my understanding is that any other state expansions happened primarily during World War I (and under the constraints of a wartime society).

      Can you show me some examples to back your claim?

  3. […] mean it. A mere five days after publishing his little manifesto, he published a post with the title “Why Women’s Suffrage Destroys Democracy,” arguing […]

  4. Paul says:

    Personally, I think that the whole point of universal suffrage was to create an easily-influenced voting block. It was an intentional move to engineer society in a certain direction by conjuring up a voting block that can be used for that purpose, much as the current move to create millions of new citizens via amnesty.

    Nothing new under the sun, the Romans began relaxing rules for citizenship, IIRC eventually extending it even to the Germanic barbarians increasingly settling in Roman territory. Anyone remember how that turned out for them?

    • Yes, quite possibly. Which is why, for instance, the powers that be are trying to *lower* the voting age in several European countries. The younger the more ignorant, gullible, foolish and plyable.

      You have to admire the brilliance of their schemes. These people are very smart und have thought things out in great detail…

  5. Ray Manta says:

    TzeTze Anopheles wrote:
    Due to their own group preference women vote far more homogenously than men do.

    Millions of years of evolution has optimized women for resource extraction from men, not wealth creation. Which is why women favor wealth transference. The decline of democracy due to female suffrage is something that has deep biological roots.

    • Absolutely.

      We’re simply reliving an age old drama that has happened many times over.

      I’m going to write an article about feminism in the Roman Empire soon (it’s on my to do list).

      Rome fell due to (amongst other factors) women’s emancipation.

      • I think your conclusions are right for the most part, but as I read Ray Manta’s comment and your reply to it, it seems obvious you believe the behavior of women and men is the result of evolution, which I won’t necessarily confront directly as wrong, but simply point out that if we are all the results of an evolutionary sequence, we are all the results of “chance”.

        While your conclusions about why what is happening, is happening, are correct, they do not beget a moral imperative to do anything different, as a moral imperative simply cannot exist in a state of “chance”. In a state of chance, your post is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment for those who are in fact, interested. The survival of a democratic society, the species of humans for that matter, isn’t right or wrong, if it happens or doesn’t, under a state of evolution, it is simply what has happened. To the extent you wish to do something about that, it’s merely an evolutionary impulse but again, it is not “moral” it is not the “right” thing to do.

        That being said, I believe that there is such a thing as morality, and logically it follows, if there is, then it must be objective, which indicates there must be a “drawer-of-the-line” ergo there must be a God. Further, arguing that “morality” is a result of evolution because it helps survive the species, I believe is erroneous, morality leads to deference to the weak and fragile, the seeing after of the widow and orphan if you will, which is not at all advantageous for species survival, ergo the mere existence of morality as a construct indicates it’s reality as a more than a construct, as an immutable truth established by an outside actor.

        Further, I believe on a scientific level, evidence, and theories around evolution, age of the planet/universe, etc, which are necessary components of a notion of deeply ingrained biological female behavior have fundamental flaws, which rule them out as likely. Not the least of which is not one single instance in the fossil record of evolutionary change from one species to the other, and the fundamental assumptions around starting carbon composition for carbon dating to be accurate, even considering collaboration methods.

        So what am I driving at? Your conclusions are right, but I think more importantly they reveal a moral bankruptcy in society, so the status should be changed, but that begs the question, to what, and how will we know?

        I believe if our society will simply begin to acknowledge the fundamental reality that there are two paradigms through which to view existence: subjective or objective (Subjective being synonymous with evolutionary/chance based reality and objective with a “God” established morality based reality); then through examination of our existence on that basis one will logically conclude that morality exists, objectively. This will by necessity require us to ask ourselves then what is moral, how can we know, and where did it come from? If we engage in that logical thought process we’ve solved half the battle because invariably we’ll concede we are going to disagree on the answers, but we will agree there is, in fact, an answer. Given that, logically we must default to a society with as few impositions by law/third party governance on individual freedom as possible. If your evidence is correct and I believe it is, female suffrage intrinsically leads to a less individually free society, then under the above-stated paradigm, it is the moral imperative to end it.

  6. […] to equal rights and suffrage in its day. #1. #2. The opposition to equal rights today. #1.  Gloria Steinem receives presidential medal of freedom. #1. #2. Feminism and the lack of […]

  7. […] opposition to equal rights and suffrage in its day. #1. #2. The opposition to equal rights today. #1.  Gloria Steinem receives presidential medal of freedom. #1. #2. Feminism and the lack of […]

  8. Gravy says:

    I disagree with “Any country that thus gives women the vote is *inevitably* doomed to devolve into tyranny ere long. There is no other possibility. This is a sad conclusion but unfortunately I believe it to be God’s honest truth”.
    Getting to vote is both a privilege and a responsibility. If it was emphasized to be taken as a responsibility too, then it wouldn’t doom us. We do have pretty serious neocortex for overriding biological urges.. But yeah, if we keep tip-toeing around women because we dont want to critisize, then yes we are headed that way…

  9. Net Wizard says:

    These two pictures tell the whole story about women’s suffrage:

  10. Pierluigi Di Pietro says:

    Hamsters will rule the world. Humans, surrender to it.

  11. MGTOW-man says:

    This is a fancy way of saying that women are selfish and oblivious about it. Their feelings skew their perceptions of reality rendering them unfit for rational and objective discussion.

  12. Siegfried Kesselfieber says:

    • Ian says:

      I wish I’d seen this when there was active conversation about it. More than 3 years old, now…

      While I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment behind this article, I’ve just wanted to ask: if socialism and expanding government bureaucracy can be explained largely by the female vote, how do we explain the 1909/1910 UK “Peoples’ Budget” of the Liberal Party, or the whole US Progressive movement? Seems they caused all the evils in succeeding decades, not the women.

      • Truck says:

        JD Rockefeller and Co.
        Not only did they fund womens suffrage but also the Federal Reserve and Income Tax. Agenda driven elite gave women the vote for a reason. Destruction of American sovereignty, Family, and the hedge on the world economy. Women VOTE for every thing they so desire. Government is their surrogate husband and they will unwittingly destroy everything in order to empower it.

  13. Tiger Eye says:

    The truth is the truth, no matter how you look at it. Unlike women, we don’t think intuitively. We base our knowledge on facts and research data. We can see that the results prove these theories correct. Women who vote are easily beguiled by their greed and want all that we have and privileges.

  14. jason workman says:

    Completely true, we are going to have to retract the female vote if we want to keep our country strong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s