His sixth of eight points on Why We Will Lose reads:
Kryptonite to Women -- Okay, maybe what we're doing isn't kryptonite to all women, but many women won't associate with our ideas. Why is this important? Because it leaves half our people out of the struggle. The women that do stick around have to deal with a constant litany of abuse and frequent courtship invitations from unwanted suitors. Beyond the often-restated tropes about crime against woman, nothing says "you are not important to us" than sexualizing women in the movement. Don't tell me that's not an issue. I've seen it happen in all kinds of radical circles, and ours is the worst for it. With our woman folk that contribute to the cause, be encouraging and helpful and not discouraging and unhelpful. We need women's help, now more than ever.This is a very good point. It is one that has been burning in the back of my mind for a while. There needs to be outreach to women by the pro-white conservative and reactionary movement. For now we are mostly male.
In a way this makes sense. White and Asian males are victims of affirmative action; females of these groups can either be beneficiaries or victims. So there is one less grievance spurring females to action. On the other hand, some of the worst interracial atrocities hit white women (and presumably Asian women, though I haven't seen direct evidence of this) in the form of over 10,000 rapes per year, as well as assorted beatings (hat tip: Dennis Mangan).
Women need to know that there are white men still alive who want to protect them, not through either "knight errantry" of either the martyr or vigilante variety, but through disciplined political action. Crime is of paramount importance, of course, but cultural decay, enforced multilingualism, falling educational standards, and emergency rooms crowded with non-contributors are also important issues.
Some of alt-rightists rail against woman suffrage. I am very skeptical of claims by some that the downfall of limited government and traditional republicanism can be blamed on female voters. I am not a feminist, unless you can be an ultraconservative neo-McCarthyist feminist, which I highly doubt. Contra the critics of woman suffrage, it is clear that the central problem of political rights is not the removal of gender qualification in 1920, but the removal of property qualifications in the early 19th Century.
I don't activate a return to the era in which owning real property was a qualification for voting. What matters is that only net taxpayers be allowed to vote. Owning land is a sign that someone is paying taxes, but not necessarily net taxes; furthermore, there are many taxes other than property taxes. Incidentally, my proposal would also satisfy John Derbyshire's call to Disenfranchise the Public Sector, as well as disenfranchising welfare recipients and military contractors (though not actual military personnel, who contribute enough by putting their lives on the line).
Difficult as this would be to put into a constitutional amendment, it would be considerably easier than disenfranchising women, which I consider nigh impossible. But beyond that, I ask you conservatives and reactionaries: Who would you rather disenfranchise - your mother and the love of your life, or a homeless man and a Federal bureaucrat?