german flag and sky

Another step toward femocracy

In my article Germany’s Quota Politicians, I showed how much influence feminism already asserts in German politics. Since then, the only party solidly opposed to women’s quotas has been voted out of the Bundestag[1] and it is likely that the next government will push for women’s quotas in private companies. And as if that weren’t bad enough, the feminists have now won another victory over democracy.

As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports[2], in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, the ruling coalition of social democrats and Greens have passed a law to manipulate local elections. According to the law[3], the ballot paper for local elections must contain the following quote from the German constitution:

Men and women are equal before the law[4].

Further, it must list the ratio of men and women for each party as it was two months before the vote as well as the sex ratio of those candidates nominated in the top half of the suggested list of each party. This is a none-too-subtle hint to voters that they ought to vote for more female candidates. It’s also intended to shame those parties who dare to have more male candidates. The suggestion is of course entirely fallacious. The constitution only mandates Gleichberechtigung (equal rights), not Gleichstellung (equal standing or equal outcome), but in public discourse the two entirely different and incompatible terms are frequently conflated.

It’s hard to say how successful this attempt at influencing voters will be, but even the threat of possibly being seen as anti-woman may induce parties to nominate more female candidates, thus taking politics one more step away from meritocracy. But not content with this, the new law also contains the following passage:

Women and men should be equally represented in the representative councils (gender parity). When assembling the list of suggested candidates, the parties and voters’ groups are advised to strive for gender parity[5].

This does not forbid parties from having lists that violate gender parity, but at the very least strongly discourages it. It creates the definite suggestion that there’s something suspicious and possibly illegitimate about a party that nominates more men than women. This of course entirely ignores the fact that many more men than women are interested in participating in politics. But pesky things like uncomfortable facts are conveniently ignored by the ruling femocrats.

It’s also rather arbitrary that this measure singles out sex as the sole characteristic deserving of such treatment. If gender parity is so desirable, then why not also educational or intelligence parity? Surely we wouldn’t want to deprive uneducated or unintelligent people of representation. Why not also proportional representation based on religion, race, ethnicity, income level, marital status, number of children, sexual orientation, and a host of other categories? If we apply this principle consistently enough, we won’t even have to vote any more, we can just determine who gets to be in councils and parliaments based on group membership. And while we’re at it, then we can also do away with such old-fashioned notions as individual achievement and merit.

Right now, this law only affects local elections in one Bundesland. But similar attempts have also been made in Baden-Württemberg. Right now we can still hope that laws like these will be struck down as unconstitutional, though I’m not very optimistic about that prospect. But if they stand as they are, they could be a mighty weapon in the hands of those parties who already have a higher ratio of female members and internal women’s quotas.

In any case, this is another step on the path to absolute feminist rule: femocracy. For while feminists have infiltrated all major parties, the chains of constitutional democracy still hold them to some extent and can only be loosened gradually. But in the long run, only popular opinion can avert the course we’re currently on. Thanks to the PR debacle that is modern feminism, a recent study in Germany (commissioned by a women’s magazine, no less!) has found that 64% of men are fed up with what passes for “gender equality” these days and 76% say they’ve been discriminated against based on their gender[6].

This vast number of people is currently being ignored by all major parties in Germany. Instead, the powerful feminist forces in politics and media treat them either as confused and helpless manlings who’ve been overwhelmed by all the progressiveness of our age and who need to re-educated to join the feminist cause, or else as dangerous Neanderthal machos who need to be put in their place. We can only hope that soon enough, some party will wake up and realize the great number of potential voters it could gain if only it had the courage to openly oppose the feminist hegemony. Until that happens, things are only going to get worse.


[1] Lest there be any misunderstanding, I hasten to point out that the failure of the classical liberal FDP at the recent election very likely had little or nothing to do with their stance on women’s quotas or feminism.

[2] Die gendergerechte Demokratie

[3] See:
Beschlussempfehlung des Innenausschusses zu dem Gesetzentwurf der Landesregierung,
Recommendation of the Committee on Internal Affairs on the draft law of the state government,
Änderungsantrag der Fraktionen der SPD und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN

[4] Article 3, paragraph 2, sentence 1 of the Grundgesetz. Translation mine.

[5] Änderungsantrag der Fraktionen der SPD und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, I.1. Translation mine.

[6] DER MANN 2013: Arbeits- und Lebenswelten – Wunsch und Wirklichkeit

About Jon Gunnarsson

Jon Gunnarsson is a student and writer living in Germany. Because he's fed up with the lies and propaganda of feminists, politicians, the politically correct media and other enemies of truth, he wants to make his own contribution to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • JJ

    Has anyone ever checked where their major source of funding is actually coming from? Women vote for big government, and therefore, centralized handouts. Just a thought.

    And don’t get it twisted when I say what I think about “femocracy.” I think more countries should have it…as a punishment. They only choose it themselves. Like the old rusty hunting dog on a southern porch, sleeping on a rusty nail, but won’t move anymore then necessary to howl. It could simply get up and be more comfortable. It is too lazy to do so.

    Sometimes, people have to get what they want, even though you know how awful it is going to be for them. I have been praying that Democrats in my country would get all of the government to themselves, and not lose the house. That way, if and when things go to hell or not, I know who to blame. It is time that feminists own their shit. When they piss off the hornets nest of sleeping male voters, let their be no opposition for them to blame and stay in power.


    • crydiego

      It really is about the money, FFF, Funding Funneled to Feminism. I only wish it was just one party in the US, both parties got us here.

      • Dasque

        Rad-fems to the left of me, Trad-cons to the right – here I am, fucked in the U.S. of A.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      I didn’t vote for femocracy, yet I still have to suffer under it. So do millions of others. This sort of collective guilt is nonsense.

      • Dasque

        hear, hear. Collective guilt is what I joined this movement to get away from.

        Men deserve what they get for being rapey rapists.

        Citizens deservee what they get for being born in gynocratic countries.

        See the parallel?

  • externalangst

    It’s the old bait and switch trick. Argue for equality of opportunity then switch to demand for equality of outcome.

    Now if only males could get equality of outcome in taxes paid, health services provided, longevity, leisure time, family participation etc. Not all males want leadership positions and would welcome some equal opportunity to pursue non-traditional lifestyles.

    However, a major problem with quotas for mediocre standard female politicians is the next bait and switch. Once they have established the ‘reasonable requirement’ for equal numbers of females in politics. The next need will be to change the nature of politics to suit the emotional dispositions of second-rate women. Criticizing them would have to be toned down. Robust debate will be considered too macho and discouraged.

    Politics and standards of governance would suffer accordingly. If this future comes to pass, it may just become passe or impolite to even try to question politicians and hold them to account. Welcome to Femocracy. Thanks for this report Jon. The Labor Party already has quotas for women to be selected for winnable seats in Parliament. Noises are already being made in Oz about quotas for women on Company boards.

    Political criticism of the former Prime Minister Gillard was and is widely pushed as misogyny and beyond the pale.

    • onca747

      Exactly. Kiss goodbye to the meritocracy. Externalangst sums up the quota debacle in Oz nicely, but I will add, I never once saw Mizz Gillard support Movember or any male health or education initiative. But plenty of male politicians have supported women’s health and education initiatives over the decades.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    It just goes to show you what an open joke elections are in the eyes of the REAL power holders, anyway.

    Vote for “equality” instead of “quality”, because you aren’t getting either, anyway. Don’t like it? Talk to the hand.

    • crydiego

      >”Vote for “equality” instead of “quality””

    • Jalon Cain (aka Aaron Sleazy)

      Germany has been moving rapidly towards a scenario that some political scientists describe as “post-democracy”, i.e. a condition in which a country merely maintains the facade of being a democracy, while in reality being much closer to a tyranny or oligarchy. So, while I find the regulations Jon describes utterly reprehensible, their effect will be fairly limited. Politics is mostly a joke at this point. Just look at the recent election in Germany: you had about as much choice as Americans, with only one minority party questioning the “system”. The mainstream political parties also only put on a facade. A prime example are the Social Democrats (SPD), who pushed through labor market reforms that led to widespread impoverishment of the people, and the creation of the largest pool of low-wage workers in all of Europe. It’s great for lying with statistics, because nowadays the government may just force people to work for one Euro per hour, and in plenty of cases those used to be regular and reasonably well-paid jobs.

      • OldGeezer

        If Germany is only now moving toward that scenario, they’re much further behind certain other western “post-democracies” (including my own) than I thought they were.

        • Jalon Cain (aka Aaron Sleazy)

          It’s been a slow progress in the beginning. It started in the early 1990s, and rapidly accelerated from 1998 onward. These days that country is a ‘good’ corporatocracy like many other Western countries.

      • tamerlame

        All democracies are pseudo fake democracies in my opinion. The US and UK reached post democracy years ago.

  • The Real Peterman

    What percentage of voters in Germany are women? Because if it’s 50% or more, they have only themselves to blame if they don’t like the makeup of elected officials.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      It’s very close to 50%. Don’t know about the most recent election, but in the last national election four years ago, slightly more men than women voted. And either way, it does not matter. Men and women don’t exist as a group, but merely as individuals. No man can be held responsible for how men vote and no woman can be held responsible for how women vote.

  • Mansure

    and it is likely that the next government will push for women’s quotas in private companies

    That cannot be right. Do you mean public listed companies or actual PRIVATE Companies.

    If it’s private companies, its time for a revolution. Government has no right to dictate what public companies do, its up to the share holders. And it has no right what a private company hires for leadership.

    • Jalon Cain (aka Aaron Sleazy)

      Well, the government can simply rewrite the laws, and that’s what’s happening. You may think it’s morally wrong, and even have good arguments, but who needs to listen to reason when they wield authority?

    • Spark

      What, you actually believe governments are bound by logic, reality or morals? Think again.
      Seems like it’s about time we got a colony on the moon going before anyone bearing a “crippled chromosome” as my biology teacher back in school liked to say (she’s a woman in case it wasn’t obvious) officially becomes a persona non grata on earth.

  • The Green Outlaw

    “It’s also rather arbitrary that this measure singles out sex as the sole characteristic deserving of such treatment. If gender parity is so desirable, then why not also educational or intelligence parity? Surely we wouldn’t want to deprive uneducated or unintelligent people of representation. Why not also proportional representation based on religion, race, ethnicity, income level, marital status, number of children, sexual orientation, and a host of other categories?”

    Reminds me of this video:

  • FrayedLace

    Thanks for the article and the updates about Germany, Jon.

  • Jay

    Really appreciate the updates on Deutschland. I thought Deutschland would be a bastion away from big government, and tyrannical government rule, and also a place for inherent distrust in the government. However, it appears to not be so. Come on Germany, show everyone your independence from the ideologues.

  • Ekalavya

    Femocracy = Of the women, from men and women, to the women. Long live sleeping men.

  • Kimski

    Meanwhile, in a small country to the north of Germany, where these quotas are in practical use already, a female mayor has just put up a proposal on behalf of a number of female politicians, to put in more administrators beneath them, because “they’re simply too stressed out to read and decide on everything that lands on their table”.

    Thereby effectively turning over the power to decide what eventually is decided on and what not, to a group of spindoctors and secretaries with their own agenda, that doesn’t necesseraly share the political viewpoint of the politicians they serve under. And thereby furthering the distance between the politicians and the populations they’re supposed to serve.

    Imagine a male politician doing the same, and you would be able to count his political career in hours..

    To me this raises some serious questions, and the first one is that if these women are incapable of handling the stress related work that comes with being in office, why are they even there in the first place? It certainly can’t be because of their effectiveness in decision making or their priorities, since what they’re supposed to be deciding on is obviously going to be heavily filtered if the proposal goes through, and these women want more time with their families.

    Secondly, a brief look at history shows that every time you try something like this out, (and this country is already pushing the limits of administration costs), it eventually ends up with politicians making decisions based on a reality they’re not even aware of when it comes to the voters, because they’re not informed about any problems that might exist.

    Why are these ideologues so hell bent on repeating every aspect of failed history and the inevitable fall of the goverments, that always seems to be the consequence with proposals like the aforementioned? Especially in light of the fact that they themselves constitute the majority of beneficiaries of said systems?

    Could it simply be that it has become too politically non correct to point out, that if you want to be a CEO or politician in power, you can’t expect to participate in your family life and your kids to the same extend as you did before?

    You actually have to put in the work associated with positions like these, and if you can’t even handle that, you might consider the fact that you’re in the wrong place for the wrong reasons, no matter how much “You go, girl!” or “playing nice” you’ve got to back you up.

    And the really “funny” part is, that the majority of female voters wouldn’t be caught dead voting on these female politicians:
    -They vote for the male politicians, thereby keeping the alleged “patriarchy” in place.

    How the hell can they even call it equality, when one half of the delegates needs an undefined number of extra secretaries and administrators to get them through their daily assignments, and with a substantially worse outcome?

    What’s next?
    Santa’s little helpers?
    Nurses and psychiatrists??

    “Equality” instead of “quality.” = The Fall of Rome.

  • Bewildered

    A prelude to another ‘French Revolution’ ?

    • Kimski

      In the case of the widening gap between the delegates and the electorates, Rome is a pretty good example.
      But in terms of this continuing to it’s inevitable outcome, unless something drastically happens, a cross between the riots of L.A. and the French Revolution probably isn’t too far fetched.

      Recent history, (-New Orleans, the race riots in Brittain, and in the case of the L.A. incident), hasn’t exactly shown that the western governments are capable of keeping things under control, when the shit hits the fan.

  • saracen395

    In France,come election time,if a new candidate stands,the public at least ask questions about the candidates views on matters
    concerning themselves and the public at large.In the UK it’s a sham,nobody asks anything,the candidate gets in on the party line
    and 6 months later,with her feet under the table,the old “women’s rights”takes precedence and the men are unrepresented.It is the
    fault of males who do not seem to care an iota about who gets power.Nothing will ever be done about Feminism all the time 50%
    of males actually agree with equal outcomes and fail to involve themselves in the important matters.It might,in the end,be of more use
    voting those males out of power who think they are so esconced they can afford to hold equal outcome views.