Sex Differences in the Franchise: testable institutional failure rather than sexism
–“If our voting system were to be overhauled, rather than stripping the right to vote from ALL women, how might we filter out the 80% of women with female cognition while somehow keeping the 20% of women who have male cognition, so as to not be ‘sexist’.”–
Good question. It gets to the operational heart of the matter without the usual moralizing fog.
1. Voting Isn’t a ‘Right’ — It’s a License to Direct Coercion
Voting directs the organized application of state violence (taxes, law, policy, enforcement). In a high-trust polity, this requires demonstrated reciprocity: full accounting of costs imposed on others’ demonstrated interests (body, time, effort, offspring, reputation, commons). Universal suffrage fails this test because it allows irreciprocal majorities to externalize costs without liability.
Voting directs the organized application of state violence (taxes, law, policy, enforcement). In a high-trust polity, this requires demonstrated reciprocity: full accounting of costs imposed on others’ demonstrated interests (body, time, effort, offspring, reputation, commons). Universal suffrage fails this test because it allows irreciprocal majorities to externalize costs without liability.
The data is clear: adding women to the franchise produced predictable shifts toward pathos-driven policy (welfare expansion, debt accumulation, dysgenic incentives, open borders, family dissolution) because female cognition biases toward:
-
Higher neuroticism & empathy → preference for immediate care/relief over long-term systemic costs.
-
Risk-externalization → “someone else pays” (tribe/state/men bear reproduction/safety costs).
-
Evasion of responsibility → moralizing/shaming/rallying/gossip (GSRM) over direct accountability.
-
Short time preference in commons production.
This isn’t ‘all women’ — it’s the modal female distribution (the 80% you reference), and it’s why anti-suffrage predictions bore out almost exactly.
2. Why Blanket Bans Are Inefficient (and Irreciprocal)Banning all women imposes costs on the ~20% with male-like cognition (systematizing, low neuroticism, high agency, responsibility-bearing) without full accounting. That’s baiting-into-hazard: false promise of ‘fairness’ that raises cooperation costs. We don’t ban all low-IQ people — we filter via demonstrated performance. Same logic applies here.
3. Operational Filters That Target Female-Biased Cognition Without Blanket SexismUse demonstrated responsibility proxies that correlate strongly with male cognition / high-agency women, while excluding pathos-driven, irreciprocal voting:
-
Net Taxpayer Status — Must have paid more in taxes than received in transfers over lifetime (or projected). Disproportionately excludes single mothers, long-term welfare users, and low-responsibility lifestyles (heavily female-skewed).
-
Parental Responsibility — Tied votes/benefits to number of children raised to adulthood without state intervention (future taxpayers). Rewards high-agency pair-bonded families; penalizes single motherhood / dysgenic reproduction.
-
Criminal / Civil Liability Record — Exclude those with pattern of GSRM-style fraud, defamation, false accusations, or family court abuse (heavily female tactics we already suppress in men via violence/dueling laws historically).
-
IQ + Delayed Gratification Tests — Minimum threshold (e.g., 105+) + time-preference measures (e.g., marshmallow equivalents or credit score proxies). Captures high-agency women; excludes modal female distribution.
-
Military / Civic Service — Demonstrated bearing of commons costs (defense, emergency response). Historically male, but high-agency women qualify.
-
No Public Sector Employment Dependency — Exclude those whose income depends on state largesse (teachers, bureaucrats, NGO workers) — heavily female and pathos-biased.
These aren’t ‘sexist’ — they’re sex-neutral but produce disparate impact because of biological distributions in cognition, valuation, and behavior. We already accept disparate impact for IQ/criminal filters.
4. Systemic Fixes (Better Than Filters Alone)Filters are bandaids. Restore decidability via institutional design:
-
Multi-House Legislature — Territorial (regions/men-heavy), Commercial (capital), Familial/Women’s House (pathos inputs contained), Institutional (academy/experts). Policies require cross-house consensus — no more majoritarian pathos raids.
-
Constitutional Amendment — Criminalize female equivalents of male antisocial behavior (sedition via moralizing/shaming/rallying, false victimhood claims) under strict liability.
-
Restore Intergenerational Family Primacy — Reverse no-fault divorce, tie benefits to pair-bonded reproduction, tax workforce participation by non-mothers.
-
Restore Demand for Evidence of Enforcement – Evidence of enforcement of responsibility, reciprocity, and accountability.
5. Bottom LineWe don’t need to ban women — we need to ban irreciprocity. The 20% of high-agency women will pass every filter above and add value. The 80% won’t — not because of ‘sexism,’ but because their demonstrated interests conflict with sustainable high-trust commons.
Natural Law doesn’t promise equality of outcome. It demands full accounting of costs. Universal suffrage failed that test. These reforms pass it.
Happy to drill deeper on any filter or house design.
Cheers
Curt
Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 16:01:54 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2035024041132888255
Leave a Reply