Source: Bigstock

In ancient Greece, women weren’t allowed to vote. This wasn’t mere bigoted, reasonless, irrational male sexism: It was based on actual biology.

Participation in the public polis of Athens was forbidden for females, as they were said to suffer from a severe chronic condition called hysteria, consisting of mood swings, erratic behavior, and “incontinence” of the emotional, not bladder-based, variety. This was because hidden away inside their bodies like a Russian doll lurked an independent parasitic entity, the womb or uterus, or hysterika, as it was known in the language of the day.

Like the fetal xenomorphs in the Alien movies, this was conceived of as “an animal within an animal,” and when it got too dry due to lack of sex, it would wander around inside its feminine host body in search of spermy sustenance, causing extreme physiological, and thence mental, imbalance. Wombs having good noses, the only solution was for a woman to repel the itinerant beast from her upper body by imbibing cloves of foul-scented garlic and entice it back down into the correct abdominal niche by smearing her vagina with sweet, sweet honey, as if seducing Winnie-the-Pooh.

Because of such in-built genetic flaws, even such noted authorities of the day as Aristotle and Hippocrates argued that “persons with wombs,” as they were definitely not yet then called, should be kept as far away from primitive voting booths as was humanly possible.

How archaic, many modern readers may think. How retarded. And yet, in light of the recent immensely cheering election of Donald Trump to become the 47th new American Alcibiades, some contemporary political commentators have now suddenly decided the ancient Greeks may have been correct in their misogynistic prejudices after all—the difference being that, today, those who wish to deny women the vote somehow claim to be feminists.

A Gender Agenda
Prior to the ballot, we were constantly being hectored into believing this was going to be the “Gender-Gap Election,” in which boys went Trump and girls went Harris.

Where black female humans were concerned, this was indeed the case. Exit-poll figures show only 7 percent chose Donald, whilst an overwhelming 91 percent voted Kamala. Latino women split themselves right down the middle like a careless gymnast, tearing violently apart nearly 60–40 in Harley Quim’s favor.

Alone amongst their sex, white women preferred to vote for the Big Orange Man, by a perineum-thin margin of 53–45, which many early analysts guessed may have handed Trump victory.

“Vote with your vag!” advised some slogan-bearing T-shirts prior to the election, and so America’s women did, apparently. The more melanated your muff, the more likely you were to vote for the blackish-brownish candidate whose personal concealed male-in ballot box would have most closely matched your own on a Farrow & Ball color chart.

But what does this pronounced ethnic distribution of votes along clear racio-vaginal lines mean? Most urgently, that white women, hysterical and unreasonable wandering-womb traitors to their own gender-kind that they so obviously are, should immediately have their future votes stolen away from them forever…in the name of feminism.

Girl-on-Girl Action
In the wake of the vote, Joyless Reid, an angry black woman with cropped yellow hair who looks like a Nintendo Mii, scolded America’s Caucasian Karens live on MSNBC that, having voted en masse for Trump in the past too, this was “the second opportunity that white women in this country have [wasted] to change the way they interact with the patriarchy,” blaming her Aryan Sistas for the fact her side lost to the alleged white “fascists” of Trump-Town. Reid’s own womb has evidently wandered so far astray, it must be in Vladivostok by now.

Gloomy Hostin, another angry brown media female with a platform, said the morning after the night before on ABC that “black women tried to save this country again last night,” just like they previously had in WWII and Vietnam. Kamala had run a “flawless campaign,” apart from all the massive flaws in it, she explained, before blaming “uneducated white women” for the unwanted and otherwise inexplicable result. “I think this was a referendum on cultural resentment in this country,” Hostin added, in a rather resentful fashion, culturally speaking.

Even some brainwashed white women joined in the nationwide hormonal hatefest against their own kind. Many wandering-wombed white wonders who voted Democrat vowed to quite literally signal their virtue by wearing pathetic gay Taylor Swift-style blue “friendship bracelets” to prove to all and sundry that they were not members of the hideous immoral 53 percent of sex traitors who had dared vote Drumpf.

In the name of their professed and entirely obvious anti-fascist leanings, I’m surprised the 45 percenters didn’t just demand the other 53 percent be forced to wear big yellow stars instead.

Womb With a View
One of the key feminist lines of anti-Trumpian resistance was that the man himself is supposedly a rapist, and victims must always be believed, except when they claim to have been raped by an immigrant, then it’s all just lies, lies, lies: Most Mexicans don’t even have penises, they’re just grown in pots from beans, that’s why they’re called that, all Sensible Democrat Women agree.

Trump himself, however, appears to disagree with this particular utopian genital assessment, promising to build ever more of his big, beautiful border wall and kick out all the rape-y illegals, hilariously telling a preelection crowd in Wisconsin that, by doing so, he was going to “protect the women of our country…whether the women like it or not.” Trump then went on to ask his audience whether any woman there did not wish to be protected from rape by foreigners. None raised their hands.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, a wearyingly prolific überfeminist British tweeter named Dr. Charlotte Proudman—who was radicalized against the other sex at birth by her own chauvinist name—was outraged that so many female voters had “left their homes and made their way to the ballot to vote for a rapist to take charge of their freedoms and reproductive rights.” Just wait until she finds out about the 1996 election, when a clear female majority voted for Bill Clinton.

“The only thing America hates more than a rapist is a woman,” fumed another Twitter user. That certainly explains why Bill’s wife lost in 2016, then.

Abortive Logic
Obviously, men vote on many issues during elections—the economy, defense, education, tax, immigration, health care, but only very rarely testicular cancer, mustaches, or the price of condoms. Women, though, are a different breed, only ever voting upon matters touching directly upon their genitalia or confusingly complex internal reproductive systems—or so say the left-wing feminists, anyway, who apparently think all other women are every bit as stupid and forever blob-on-the-brain as they are.

Supposedly, said the feminists, the only thing women were going to be voting on in this election was abortion—even if you were 75 years old, and thus long past reproductive age, all you were meant to care about was abortion.

Even if you’d just lost your job, and consequently had nothing to eat and nowhere to live, abortion was clearly the only relevant issue.

If you lived right on the open border with Mexico, and now had the entire population of Port-au-Prince camping out in your backyard, eating all your pets after giving them AIDS, “reproductive rights” were the only thing you were now presumed to give the single, tiniest poo about.

If you’d just lost your home, your husband, and your kids in a hurricane, the only issue currently crossing your mind was abortion.

If your hometown had just been invaded by Russia, Mars, and Iran simultaneously, abortion was the only topic trending on your timeline.

If your teenage daughter had just been groomed by her activist teachers into surgically mutilating herself to become a man, then, once again, abortion was the only issue at hand. You should have just aborted her over a decade ago, and then none of this would ever even have happened.

And, if you’d just successfully had an abortion anyway, one thing, and one thing only, now mattered to you regardless: When can I have my next one?!

Abortion, ABORTION, ABORTION!!! It’s all anybody biologically able to have one was ever talking about…well, apart from Kamala’s shoes, obviously.

Pure Shit, Sherlock
Women talk about shoes, don’t they? In fact, they very frequently base their complete choice of who to vote for, if not the entirety of their whole adult lives, upon such highly significant footwear-based concerns. That, at least, was the opinion of a quite laughable article on The Conversation, a commentary site toward which only academics and PhD students are allowed to contribute articles, and which is consequently full of mad identitarian rubbish.

Alexandra Sherlock is billed as being “Lecturer, School of Fashion and Textiles, RMIT University,” and her insightful essay “What Kamala Harris’ Converse All-Stars tell us about how shoes shape our identity” was published on November 5, the very day of the election itself, such was its profound importance to the future of psephological science.

Converse All-Stars are a popular brand of famously affordable white sneakers or running shoes for those who rarely actually run, with Harris’ own pair supposedly becoming “a focal point of her campaign,” something which, if true, may further help explain her loss.

Sherlock’s essay perceptively explains how “Like most public figures, Kamala Harris adapts her footwear to different occasions,” as such items “affect how we move through the world physically,” like wearing roller skates on a hill. Her epoch-making decision to bravely wear inexpensive sneakers in public “signals a new era in female political leadership,” the Great Detective argued, as “when we observe someone’s footwear we are using them [the shoes] to know whether or not we identify with that person. This is something that politicians and their teams know and manipulate to win votes.”

Is it? How so? Because, by choosing to don “an all-American shoe worn by people of all ages, races, genders and sexualities,” Kamala was using her Converse All-Stars as “a social leveler,” such magic socialist shoes allowing her to “identify with a broad audience” of gays, blacks, Jews, Communists, retards, etc. The empowering female-friendly message being broadcast? “In these shoes, she’s ready for anything.” Except the presidency of the United States, evidently.

If the Shoe Fits the Theory…
Impressively, Sherlock even manages to shoehorn transgender politics into Kamala’s sneakers, referencing the common Queer Studies lie that all gender is a pure performance:

Through the process of wear, shoes change us…. Identity can be understood as something that is performed…. One might say she [Kamala] has become her shoes…. [She] has come to embody the all-American values they represent. And at only 5 feet 4¼ inches, the choice not to compensate for her height with heels exudes a self-assurance more women are discovering.

Hey, girls, vote Kamala—she’s a giant shoe! Joy! Joy! Taylor Swift! Brat Summer! Sparkles! Sparkles! Unicorns! Pink things! Friendship bracelets! Susan B. Anthony! Don’t vote Trump or he’ll rape you! He’ll make you pregnant with an orange baby! Here, have a free abortion—even if you’re dead, have one anyway, just in case! Is this really how the “feminist” Democrats thought they would win female votes?

I fear I must respectfully disagree with Aristotle. It’s not females per se who should be denied the vote on grounds of inferior mental capacity. It’s just feminists.