I think that female suffrage has been an unremitted disaster – all of the socialism that we’ve experienced in the US has happened since, and because women have been allowed to vote.If only us uppity wimminz had been confined to kinder, küche, und kirche, and let the menfolk handle politics, we’d still have a Tsar in Russia, by Allah!
(...and I never liked Pride And Prejudice, or Sex In The City, either. *shrug*)
Not all women Tam, but if I've seen the electoral math, look at the split in the way women vote you can pretty well eliminate the leftish wing of the democratic party as a viable election winning group for the last 50 years.
ReplyDeleteHey, while we're at it, we could disenfranchise Jews, Blacks, and urban Irish using the same logic! :D
ReplyDelete(Mind you, some of my best friends are women, Jews, blacks, and urban Irish!)
ReplyDeleteSocialism existed before suffrage, and even today it's most outspoken advocates are often male.
ReplyDeleteStill, far left / socialist candidates do seem poll stronger among female voters...
Regardless, you should read 'Missile Gap'. It's a fun strange.
ReplyDeleteWoodrow Wilson was elected by men, and was probably the most vile president we've had. Not to mention that all the supreme court cases that have been eroding our rights, all done primarily by men. To pretend that voting patterns would remain the same within the male gender without women voting is just silly.
ReplyDeleteSo you didn't like Pride and Prejudice. Have you read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies yet?
ReplyDeleteIt seems more like a victory for identity politics than anything else, to me. Which would make sense: it was progressives that gave us such great ideas as class warfare and eugenics.
ReplyDeleteI think it probable that elections would be more likely to go my way in certain areas without the votes of blacks and women. That is nowhere near sufficient justification to deny their rights.
ReplyDeleteI'd never consider turning back the clock on suffrage, of course. but on that same note, I'd don't want history to forget that it was those first-wave feminists (who aligned themselves with some holy-roller heavies) who managed to get Prohibition passed as the law of the land.
ReplyDeleteSomehow Carry A. Nation seems to have dropped off the first-waver A list, (although Emma Goldman still seems to be on it for some odd reason)
That's as distasteful as Jessie Jackson 'forgetting' which group was denied the right of self-defence by the Jim Crow laws or handing Gorbachev all the credit for dissolving the USSR.
"we’d still have a Tsar in Russia"
ReplyDeleteAnd the world would be better off today, having foregone the three quarters of a century long failed social experiment that resulted with his departure.
Timmeeh,
ReplyDeleteI truly mean no offense, but that dark blur that just whizzed over your head? It was The Point. ;)
Not only do they get to vote, but they serve on juries and DRIVE!
ReplyDelete(ducks, runs for cover)
wv: swahidge.....????
I've no doubt that the country would lurch significantly to the right if suffrage was denied again to women.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I also hated being made to give up recess 'cause That Kid was acting up and the teacher was too lazy or timid to do anything but group punishment.
How about this instead? Answer 8 of 10 questions randomly pulled from the US Citizenship test correctly before your vote is counted. In English.
... works on dummies of all ages, colors, national origins, creeds and sex. Very equal opportunity. :)
The three major events or major societal changes in 20th century that did more to advance the nanny government that all other events combined were:
ReplyDelete1. World War 1
2. Womens suffrage
3. Massive expansion of university education
Just because item two is true (and some rather exhaustive demographic studies have been done showing that it is) doesn't mean women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
American blacks and hispanics are more likely to vote for leftists idiocy too, that doesn't mean they should be barred from voting either.
In general, over the long term, and free of interference or distortion; people will vote their perceived interests.
The "more vulnerable" of society (which up until recently included the majority of women, blacks, and hispanics) will almost always vote for more "safety" than more freedom; because they have historically been more likely to suffer under the negative consequences of failure, and therefore perceive the risk/reward metric differently than white males have historically.
Also, both the most wealthy, and most educated members of society (who believe either that the negatives impacts of leftism wont effect the greatly; or that they can benefit more from the "system" if more government control is in place, at the expense of the slightly less educated risk taking capitalists that would otherwise dominate), and the poorest and least educated members of society (who generally believe that they will not be able to succeed to a greater degree than the government would provide largess), generally, vote for more protectionism, socialism, leftism etc...
This split is by no means stable. As I said, people will tend to vote their perceived interests. Men will vote left and women will vote right, if the positions floated match their perceived interest. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected by landslide four times. Reagan was elected by landslide twice.
The problem then is not that women, minorities, and the poor vote left, or vote for socialism necessarily.
The problem is that they perceive (generally incorrectly) that their interests, and the interests of society, are better served by leftism.
So the task for us, is making the large majority of the people understand that socialism is not in their interest, or the interest of society as a whole.
Saying that "womens suffrage caused socialism" isn't exactly helpful in that.
Tam, our women are tougher than their men. That is a good thing. If only we could deny the vote in some manner analogous to Starship Troopers...to weed out the unfit from the electorate....of course they would try to weed out the fit from the electorate at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Dutch filmmaker who jumped the terrorist and put out his flaming underwear could be prosecuted!
Well my Grandfather always said that our mistake was not in giving them the vote. It was when we taught them to talk.
ReplyDeleteJust Call me "Zeb Carter"
Tam, you must be tired after typing all that. Why don't you just lay your pretty little head down before you get the vapors and need the fainting couch.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated: You are the queen of snark, but there is a pretender to the throne.
ReplyDeletehttp://minx.cc/?post=296301
The comments are worth your trouble.
This country was originally a representative republic. The reason women and children didn't have a vote was because the family was the smallest unit of representation. The family would assemble and tell their representative -- the husband/father -- how to vote, which he would.
ReplyDeleteAnd so on, up to larger representative districts and zones.
The country has been moving more and more towards democracy and ruin, with women's suffrage, direct election of senators (turning them into a miniature House of Representatives), and the proposed elimination of the electoral college for the direct election of the President.
It's the mob rule of democracy that's ruining the country, not woman's suffrage per se.
As an urban Irish type, with Jewish and black relatives...
ReplyDeleteThe numbers skew largely because of the professional welfare class. After three,four,and five generations of it, government is the only daddy they know.
It also deserves noting that said welfare class was created completely by the Democratic party, solely as a source of captive votes (slavery-lite).
W's lame attempt to suborn the parasite vote (compassionate conservatism) floundered because they knew that, however much the Republicans were willing to pay for their votes, the Democrats would pay more.
After the 2004 election, USAToday had a front page article breaking down the vote by ethnicity and race.
African-American, 90% Democrat. Think welfare recipient(60%), and government employment (a majority of college educated African-Americans work in Government), and that only leaves the few, but remarkable, blue collar blacks to stand with us.
I say remarkable, because I'm not sure I could have maintained a work ethic if I'd grown up under a government that gave me whatever I needed, along with a paternalistic pat on my knappy head, and told me I was entitled because people were bad to my grandparents, and I should be angry about it.
When I see a Black family that's functional, I feel proud of them. I was in an auto parts store a while back, in mostly black Bloomfield CT, with a bunch of other middle-aged guys who still fixed their own cars. They happened to be black, but I was smirking humorously over the fact that they had more in common with me than my sons do.
My plumber and I are looking at going in together on some acreage in the western part of the state, isolated and reasonably fertile.
I don't give a rat's ass what shade of brown he is, he's a cool, steady dude who can fix anything I can't, and who's a damned fine shot who brings home his venison every year.
Jewish-American, 85% Democrat. Most of them settled in the big coastal cities, and never really left Europe.
The schtetl mentality (the ignorant, smelly, Goyish peasants are coming over the wall again, to rob us and rape the women) combines with the fact that the eastern European Jew was the heart and brains of the socialist and communist movements at the beginning of the 20th century.
For the first time in their humiliating history, the Ashkenazim were in a position of control.
When I was fifteen and knew everything, I was ticked at my father for his seemingly antisemitic and simplistic remarks about most Jews being "Pinkoes". I never stopped to think that half his friends were Jews.
Years later, I saw pictures of the communist and socialist demonstrations in New York City during the 30's. Literally miles of communist banners, all in Yiddish.
Intelligent people voting against their own long term interests out of tribalism and ingrained paranoia. The judgement of most American Jews by Israeli friends of mine is pretty harsh.
Unmarried White women, 68% Democrat.
No suprise, again, when you consider the brainwashed, "sensitive" teenie-boppers who grew up on Oprah and Jerry Springer, plus all those welfare mommies protecting their livelihood.
Married White women voted majority Republican, supposedly because the Republicans were seen as better on national security then the Democrats. Small wonder the "Main Stream Media" began to downplay military successes and attempt to make the entire process seem like a hopeless quagmire.
The last Democrat to win the majority of the White male vote was Jack Kennedy in 1960, by one half of a percent, due to his lying about being a wounded war hero. There wasn't an internet/web then for Swift-boaters to out him.
Still, all the hot women in politics are conservative. I'll take Janine Turner over Bella Abzug any day.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteQuick demographic. Republican women, mostly married, 2.4 children average.
Democratic women, mostly unmarried, 1.5 children. State support is an absolute for most of them. With that birth rate, do you wonder why the Democrats want to get all those illegals on welfare and the voting rolls?
Um, Ed?
ReplyDeleteA lot of your rant I agree with, however I do have one quibble.
The last Democrat to win the majority of the White male vote was Jack Kennedy in 1960, by one half of a percent, due to his lying about being a wounded war hero.
Kennedy not a war hero? His Navy and Marine Corps Medal and Purple Heart would seem to indicate otherwise.
Tam,
ReplyDeleteI just don't see it. I mean, if everything were according to spec, then for the last umpteen decades boys and girls of all races and communities complete the eighth grade before trying to vote. Everyone would have the basic fundamentals needed to cast an informed vote - access to news and able to write to their Congress-critters, read, write, enough math to know their billions from their millions (and trillions, now! Gads how time flies!), and at least a cursory overview of how the government is set up. I mean, obviously Nancy Pelosi learned to vote, I think most everyone should be able to manage that level of proficiency.
As for what vote to cast, that takes knowing what your community needs, and what you believe is right. And, voters of any gender or cultural or racial background should know they have to discern the hogwash from the meat and potatoes. No amount of schooling, outside the school of hard knocks, will correct mishaps with ethics, morality, and character.
He was wounded, all right, but getting your command t-boned by a Japanese destroyer does not normally a war hero make.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Tam. However, I think rescuing one of your crewmen and towing him on a four-mile swim through enemy-controlled waters does. The Navy seems to agree: the "Navy and Marine Corps Medal" is a fairly high-ranking award, just below the Silver Star in terms of importance.
ReplyDeleteIf Kennedy's Wikipedia entry can be trusted, he didn't think he rated a medal for the PT-109 action himself, for exactly the reason you state. Then again, the real heroes never see themselves as especially heroic, do they?
This all could be fixed if they raised the voting age to 25 instead of lowering it to 18. With most people with age comes maturity. A 25 year old is a lot less likely to be b-sed on the values of socialism.
ReplyDeleteWV=estions= questions w/o the q
JFK was a war hero--just ask his ghost writer!
ReplyDeleteShootin' Buddy
"A 25 year old is a lot less likely to be b-sed on the values of socialism."
ReplyDeleteReally? 'Cause the Gray Panther bloc it as reliably pink as they come. Retirees love them some free stuff.
"The Navy seems to agree: the "Navy and Marine Corps Medal" is a fairly high-ranking award, just below the Silver Star in terms of importance."
ReplyDeleteWhen the most aristocracy-conscious of services awards it to the scion of Joe Kennedy, it taints the authenticity some.
There are decorations and then there are decorations: For example, Henry Erwin paid a lot more for his MOH than did Doug MacArthur.
JimB said...
ReplyDeleteThis all could be fixed if they raised the voting age to 25 instead of lowering it to 18. With most people with age comes maturity. A 25 year old is a lot less likely to be b-sed on the values of socialism.
Horseshit. What the hell kind of stupid idea is that? At one point and time 18 year-olds were plenty mature enough to vote. The soft-assed, too often bastards need the responsibility they're sorely lacking (thanks, piss poor parents!), not someone telling them to be a damned kid until they're 25. That's a big part of the problem, not the solution.
The heck with disenfranchising only women. Nobody should be allowed to "vote" when it's someone else's rights on the chopping block.
ReplyDeleteI think it has less to do with gender and more to do with the fact that a large percentage of women go straight from "Daddy takes care of everything" to "Hubby takes care of everything". Hence, they never develop a discrete, mature understanding of the world, which is why I tend to avoid book clubs and knitting circles on principle. And yet it's always a shock for me when I meet a girl from high school who is still, eight years and 2.5 kids later, more girl than woman.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
ReplyDeleteRegarding TJIC's commentary on the voting trends of various demographics, Bobbi just called out "People who live in Mass. houses shouldn't throw stones."
My roomie is funny...
Joanna said...
ReplyDeleteI think it has less to do with gender and more to do with the fact that a large percentage of women go straight from "Daddy takes care of everything" to "Hubby takes care of everything".
While that was true at one point, many women now screw around until they're in their 30's then desperately marry whatever will have them (apparently, doing so is empowering). Hence the need for government to ride shotgun between mommy (daddy? how positively Ward Cleaverian) and castrated hubby/soon to be alimony check writer.
Maybe if they met any men worth marrying when they were younger, instead of tall little boys with Visa cards...
ReplyDeleteCuts both ways, OA.
Damn straight it does. Never said it didn't.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I thought of all that after I posted my original comment. Throw in the single-mother chip-on-the-shoulder demographic, and it's a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if they met any men worth marrying when they were younger, instead of tall little boys with Visa cards...
GOD yes. If you see one, send him my way. Damn biological clock ...
If I recall correctly, the original intent was for men age 25 or older to vote - that owned property.
ReplyDeleteThe thought was supposed to be, that if you owned property, you had a stake in what the government does, and a better idea of what it took to manage - and defend - your property and family.
There was an assumption that a man would be married, by age 25 (average age of marriage in the Colonies was 12-13 years). If the man didn't listen to, or intentionally represent his wife and family's views, the man would at least be affected by their needs and feelings.
From age 18 to 45, every man was to be an armed member of the militia, making that a de facto voting requirement.
That all got dismantled in the years since. Now the assumption, especially since compulsory education supposedly prepares everyone equally, is that everyone of age (and documentation/provenance) is a citizen, and a voter. With little stake in seeing the nation and community prosper, with little experience, in some cases, in managing and defending property, and in a lot of cases, no military experience or appreciation of military discipline, resolve - and often without the experience of nurturing a family through good times and bad.
It is no wonder our voting citizenry flounders all over the place.
I think both male and female suffrage is the problem.
ReplyDeleteStop voting for politicians, it just encourages them.
People in general very often see politics as something of a team sport. I know some feminists who know damn good and well the left isn't actually interested in their interests and they're pissed about it. But they'd never in a million years consider going to the "other side".
ReplyDeleteAnd given that on the other side it's considered only mildly scandalous to fantasize aloud about revoking women's suffrage, I can't entirely blame them, either.
LabRat,
ReplyDelete"And given that on the other side it's considered only mildly scandalous to fantasize aloud about revoking women's suffrage, I can't entirely blame them, either."
Srsly.
Imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted if TJIC had suggested taking away the vote from Jews, or blacks, or Catholics. Of course, to give him credit, he wouldn't have ever thought that, because it would have made him feel like a frickin' Nazi...
Thing is, I like what he writes 99% of the time, and he probably has no idea why I'm so pissed about this offhand quip, except he probably thinks I'm bent out of shape about it because it's That Time Of The Month.
Nazis? In this thread? Ironic example, Tam.
ReplyDelete"It was the women's vote that brought Hitler to power."
--Hermann Rauschning 1939
"Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas. Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi, many of them probably with few or no previous political ties. Where they came from the working class, they were likely to be non-unionised textile operatives or domestic workers." -"Who Voted For The Nazis?", Geary, History Today 10/98
ReplyDeleteBe careful of cherry-picked quotes. I'm sure there are plenty of good ones out there about Rove's appetite for the flesh of infants.
I thought Rove preferred the raw flesh of baby harp seals and salted sugar gliders as a snack?
ReplyDeleteSimple question, would the Nazis have had such gains right before things went rodeo without the female vote or did it put them over the top? The July '32 vote answers that, and claims to cherry picking won't change it. That's why I thought it a bit odd to bring up the Nazis given the post about women voting. I believe that's what's called a tactical error.
What's interesting now is the feminized "men" (lap dogs, squat pissers, mommy was daddy boys or whatever you prefer) vote. They fall in line with the single "if I say I'm empowered enough someone will believe it" women vote. I wish they'd all just buy a damn gun and learn to use it instead of telling me how to live (under penalty of sending the law to settle my hash, no less). The newfound responsibility might just help how they vote, too.
Bottom line to all of this can probably be summed up simply by saying Eve took a bite but so did Adam. At the end of the day, most everyone seems to turn into a dumbass right before societies get really unpleasant for a while.
"GOD yes. If you see one, send him my way. Damn biological clock ..."
ReplyDeleteJoanna, your 26, you still have plenty of time. Still, its good that you are already looking. Afterall, its the second most important decision you make in your life.
Well, the Irish did launch raids on Canada...
ReplyDeleteThe Canadians should be worried.
Tam said...
ReplyDelete> "People who live in Mass. houses shouldn't throw stones."
I would gladly dial MA's number of electoral votes down to zero. My vote never makes a difference, and the country would be spared.
See? I'm not just out to take the vote away from women - I want to take it away from LOTS of people (preferably, everyone - democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner).
You've got to admit it was a funny line, though. ;)
ReplyDeleteJoanna,
ReplyDeleteDon't think of a biological clock. Think of a culture to participate in, a community relationship to establish.
And look for a guy that ain't looking around. Getting a guy interested is a lot simpler that taking one that lives in fantasies with the multitudes to pay attention at home.
You make a couple to interact with your community as a couple; find someone that will behave as an honorable, honest, respectful partner in the community, and a disciplined and respectful mate and co-parent at home. Consider what is right and proper to you, what traditions and rituals are important in your life. And never think for one moment you will get a guy to change. It doesn't work that way.
Never believe anything said an hour before, or half hour after, an anticipation or act of carnal intimacy.
Find out where the hottest people hang out - and live a life that avoids those places and people like the city dump at dinner time. See above - the last thing you want is to try to tame a "hot date" to be responsible at home. They don't change, so avoid anyone "experienced" at dating.
One for-instance. If you think guns are necessary for personal and national reasons - avoid someone carrying a "Brady Bunch" button or bumper sticker.
Vets get to vote. Most of the folks I know agree, remarkably most aren't vets themselves.
ReplyDeleteTam vs. Kim.
ReplyDeleteOoh! A battle of the unemployed bums!
ReplyDelete@ Brian J, Tam,
ReplyDeleteWasn't the time of women's suffrage about the time that newspapers were improving communication and awareness of national issues?
Wasn't getting the vote to women just a part of developing the telegraph, the telephone, recorded music, and public education (which might have just a bit of liberal bias)?
Women didn't vote to give themselves the vote. The community and state and nation as a whole was changing, taking different perspectives, finding different priorities. Not just women.
I would like to see how urban vs. rural votes tracked, for men and for women. I suspect that cities concentrated women, and lost much of the visceral feelings of the founders, for husbandry of land and nation.
What I want to know about Kim's piece - this "Lott" - how is that person raising daughters to overcome whatever issue is supposed to be there? Not to be men, but to respect and emulate "Lott"'s values. I must have missed that part.