How Female Voting Became Civilization’s Ultimate Self-Destruct Button
Look, I’m not here to debate the 19th Amendment. That ship has sailed a long time ago, hit an iceberg of its own making, and is currently being picked clean by radioactive crabs. Whether or not women should have the franchise is an argument from a century ago, and frankly, I don’t have the time or willingness to argue about it.
Instead, I want to talk about something much weirder, much darker, and significantly more clusterfokt: the biological hard-wiring that’s currently acting like a ransomware virus in the mainframe of modern civilization.
We love to roleplay as hyper-logical Star Trek characters making decisions based on “Evidence” and “Reason.” But the truth is, our brains are just a moist enclosure for a panicked, feces-throwing monkey trying not to get eaten by a leopard. And for women, that evolutionary panic has created a specific, civilization-ending glitch:
The absolute, terrifying need for consensus over reality.
Dr. Gad Saad came up with the most excellent moniker “Suicidal Empathy.” It’s the drive to keep everyone “safe” and “included” until the house actually burns down because nobody wanted to be the “mean girl” who mentioned the smell of gasoline. Even if I like the smell of gasoline, and can take more time at the gas pump than I’d like to admit.
But I digress.
This is, quite literally, a pathogree: Misguided agreeableness wholesale-labeled as empathetic that, left running unchecked, will eventually kill the host with Aileen-Wuornos-grade savagery.
And it has to do with giant headed blobs:
5. Women ARE Humanity’s Baby Delivery System
To understand why we’re currently flushing society down the toilet, you have to look at the biological horror show of being a human. Because we evolved to be “smart,” we have giant, pulsating space-alien brains. But because a woman’s hips can only be so wide before she’s basically a stationary tripod, human babies have to be ejected months before they’re actually done cooking.
A baby horse can run six hours after it’s born. A human baby is a useless, screaming meat-loaf that can’t even lift its own giant head for months. This means for 99% of human history, a woman was either pregnant with a giant-headed blob, caring for a giant-headed blob, or about to enter one of those two stages. This rendered them uniquely helpless and utterly dependent on the “goodwill of the tribe.”
If the tribe decides they don’t like your vibes, you and your giant-headed meat-loaf die in a ditch. Evolution doesn’t reward “truth-telling” in that scenario; it rewards agreetonism: the reflexive, mechanical urge to agree with whatever the loudest person in the room is saying.
You can’t have “hot takes” when you’re living in someone else’s cave. You align with the consensus because alignment equals you and your cute blob NOT starving to death.
But then, consensus becomes a double-edged sword:
4. Consensus is the New “Truth”
This is why women didn’t “fall for” the narratives of the last few years. The Covid hysterics, the Summer of Love riots, the “Borders are Literally Auschwitz” tweets. They didn’t look at the data and get fooled. They looked at the appearance of consensus and did a synchronized swim right into it.
When the tribe (or the media, which is just the tribe’s megaphone) says, “This is the thing we all believe now,” the female brain snaps into place like a Lego. Evidence becomes a social liability and thus, perceived but ignored. Because if you happen to be the one person saying “Wait, this math ain’t mathin’!” you’re risking the support of the group.
In the wild, that’s a death sentence.
But we’re not in the wild anymore. We’re in a modern democracy, which... it’s just marginally better, now that I think of it. But in a modern democracy, it’s how you end up with a legal system that values “lived experience” more than “not getting stabbed in the face while just casually walking down a street in NYC.”
So yes, I clickbaited you hard with that title, because I’m not critiquing women’s right to vote. I’m addressing the reality that women’s hijacked bias towards consensus have lead us to...
3. The Death of the Rule of Law
The rule of law is a cold, hard, “male” invention. It’s a shit-shield designed to protect us from our own worst impulses. It doesn’t care if you’re sad, it doesn’t care if you had a bad childhood, and it definitely doesn’t care about your “intentions.”
It cares if you broke the fucking rule.
Which rule, I hear you say? any rule. It doesn’t matter. You broke a rule, or law, or whatever, you must face consequences proportional to the extent that your actions have damaged an individual, or your community, or society.
One could imagine that even a salmonella cell could understand this logic. But as I mentioned earlier, we’re not driven by logic but by emotions.
So, when the “consensus-first” drive takes over the steering wheel of the state, the rule of law dissolves into a puddle of empathetic diarrhea.
We stop punishing crime because we feel bad for the criminal’s “trauma.”
We stop enforcing borders because saying “No” feels like being a “meany.”
Women voting is great for agency over public matters, but it turns out they’ve been going full Norman Rockwell speaking up to the tribal leaders to make them “care more about the Abroadians!!1”
But in reality, it’s just asking the system to stop being pragmatic and start being “nice” (until we all get murdered by the people we were too “nice” to stop!)
Sounds familiar?
But that’s not even the worst part, because there’s also...
2. The Trap of Suicidal Empathy
Here is where the suicidaltruism kicks in: the practice of being so pathologically altruistic that you hand the keys of your house to the guy currently pouring lighter fluid on your porch.
The receiver of this empathy, the modern political machine, doesn’t give a single, solitary fuck about the tribe. They are predatory bureaucrats who have figured out that if they wrap a policy in “Safety” and “Compassion,” women will defend it to the death. They tell women exactly what they want to hear:
“We’re doing this for the VOOLNERAYBL!”
...while they actually just pillage the system and burn the furniture for warmth.
Women’s well-meaning ideas get implemented without a single reality check.
We trade actual safety for the feeling of being inclusive.
We trade justice for the vibe of fairness.
And the result is a society that is literally choking on its own “good intentions.”
But here’s when irony goes full James Cameron:
1. It’s Putting Women at Risk
The absolute tragedy of this whole situation is that the drive for consensus is putting women in the most danger.
By dismantling the “mean” structures of law and order in favor of a soft, empathetic hug-box, we’ve created a vacuum for actual monsters.
In a democracy, the majority’s will is final. If that will is driven by instinctual conformity rather than reality, the system collapses. And when the system collapses, it’s not the “tribal leaders” in their gated communities who suffer first.
It’s the women on the street who find out too late that “empathy” is a wet paper tissue body-armor against career criminals and Abroadians whose ‘culture’ include NOT considering women human beings.
But don’t get me wrong: this is not only women’s failure. Because men have a LOT MORE to answer for this. Because the role of REAL MEN is to protect women, even if it means causing friction by going against women’s motherly impulses. But precisely because so many men lack the proper cojones to go with that friction, they become the worst cogs of the machine:
“Allies”
One can wonder if they end up being allies of the women whose emotions they allow to run unchecked, or allies of the Abroadians and criminals ripping women apart.
In reality, it ends up being the latter. I could list all the times male judges have released career criminals back on the streets, but then this article would be longer than a Marcel Proust fever dream.
Voting has become a form of political pornography. A way to feel like we’re doing something meaningful, without actually dealing with the messy, violent reality of the world.
If we don’t start checking these empathetic impulses against the cold, hard, fuck-off facts of reality, we’re going to find out that “the tribe” doesn’t actually exist anymore.
It will be just a group of people standing in a burning house, all nodding in agreement that the smoke smells like progress.



Nuance matters here.
You’re pointing at a real failure mode — consensus replacing reality-testing, empathy being used as a substitute for enforcement, and institutions collapsing because they refuse to tolerate friction. But reducing that pathology to “female voting” or biology is a category error.
Consensus-seeking today isn’t female. It’s institutionalized conflict-avoidance — and it has been deliberately taught, rewarded, and enforced across education, HR culture, and institutional governance for two generations.
Men didn’t resist it; they adapted to it, staffed it, administered it, and enforced it. Some of the most enthusiastic consensus enforcers are male judges, male bureaucrats, male academics, and male media figures.
This isn’t estrogen. It’s conditioning.
What we’re actually seeing is moral outsourcing. People no longer want to exercise judgment — they want coverage. Consensus provides that. If everyone agrees, no one is responsible. If the process approved it, no one chose it. If the narrative dominates, dissent becomes immoral by default.
That failure isn’t rooted in women’s psychology. It’s rooted in institutions that refuse to enforce boundaries while pretending empathy is a substitute for consequences.
And here’s the real tragedy: consensus culture doesn’t protect women — it exposes them. Not because women are too empathetic, but because systems that refuse to say “no” inevitably abandon the vulnerable when reality asserts itself.
Empathy without enforcement isn’t compassion. It’s dereliction.
I am a female and an empath, but I am not like what you describe in your commentary. I in no way follow the crowd or the consensus, rather I do my own research and form my own conclusions. I am designed to consider the needs of the tribe, but I am not someone who would cowtow to group think and I have no issue at all going against the grain or confronting those I disagree with. I don’t belong to groups other than participate in some social media where I gather information and then sift through it for the truth. I am built for emotion and sensitivity, but I am also strongly logical and analytical in my thinking. I believe the women you are thinking go for consensus over rule of law are the idealists and the extroverts for who life revolves around belonging to a group. But not all of us are like that.