14 votes

Rethinking Women's Suffrage

Every now and then its good to sit down and think about major decisions we have made and to examine the reasons why we made them, and whether they succeeded in achieving the purposes we had originally intended. Without such reflection, we can never know if our decision was the right one.

Once upon a time, only men voted. This was not ideal - half of the population was allowed to vote, and voting is a pretty terrible idea.

But within narrow limits, suffrage is only able to wreak limited havoc. When voting is limited to the heads of established households who have both a proven level of good judgement and ability, and a direct interest in how the commonwealth fairs in the future, voting might even have some commendable aspects.

That's why qualifications like age, property, citizenship, mental capacity, and standing in one's community are important. Moreover, when the voting itself is limited in its impact on a small political body (about the size of a traditional congressional district in the old days), the responsible, informed voters will have good incentives for choosing the right policy. They will also have accurate information and a real interest in the outcome.

Finally, the direct influence which the average voting person will draw from his social betters will make the whole process of voting less democratic and more an organic consensus of the community, drawn from the influence of its best members.

Any extension of the ballot, either to more and more people, or to a larger and larger polity, more removed from on the ground conditions, weakens the electorate and lessens the virtuous aspects of a limited franchise described above.

Before female suffrage, we were already well on the way to the extension of the franchise to all and sundry and the growing detachment of the voter from any real connection to the elected official. So money and organized propaganda was already becoming a science for manipulating and moving masses of stupid people on the basis of group and crowd dynamics.

At the time, women tended to defer to their husbands and male relatives in matters of politics and ideas, and focused more inward on the family. The father was the traditional head of the household, and so domestic tranquility from political squabbles was insured by this state of things. At the same time, women and children and other subordinate members of households had their interests represented by the father on the political level.

Now it is a controversial thing to say, but we all know that women tend on average to be more impressionable and emotional spirits than men. Swaying a woman by appeal to emotion, or by appeal to status, conformity, being politically correct, is very easy. Even today women tend to adopt the political viewpoints of their husbands or boyfriends, at least as long as they continue to respect them.

The big compromise that lead to female suffrage was the convergence of the temperance and prohibition movement by the nation's morally upright wives with those other factions that supported the ban on imbibing alcohol. The political division of the family unit was considered a reasonable sacrifice to the moral boon to be expected from the elimination of the sins of the bottle.

But once the deed was done and the woman was now half or more of the voting herd, what happened to politics? Politics has become a sissified arena of marketing, expensive haircuts and playing on feelings. We haven't had a bearded president since Grizzly Adams. Political taverns and clubs have gone away. There is no more blood in politics or brawls. The entire masculine energy has been shifted to professional sports.

The family unit and the rights of the father have been trampled over in the most egregious manner imaginable. Divorce is the new normal. Fathers have no rights, and no one talks about it. Abortion is legal on demand.

Lots of thoughtful women in the early 20th century predicted accurately what suffrage would do to the family. It was not a universally desired outcome even among women. Looking back, it appears we made a major blunder in passing this amendment. Its too late now, but after 90 years, we can at least now sit back, have a drink, and realize we made two mistakes.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ending Women's Suffrage...

...may not be as hard to do as one thinks (And it may not be as bad of an idea as one might think either).

Just watch this video of a guy collecting signatures FROM WOMEN on a petition to end women's suffrage. I was looking for the one they did on the Man Show years ago, but turns out there are a bunch of them done by others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KTVW9bj6Bo

Another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE

Another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_yUM3gtUFo

Pathetic.

Can't help but agree with this one.

In my lifetime I have met 3 (out of more than 300) women whom I would consider intellectually up to the task of voting without simply going along with whatever hunk the Democratic Party offered up as a substitute husband fantasy piece at the ballot box, and all 3 of them had husbands who had instilled values in them similar to their own, thus resulting in a redundancy in sentiment contra the destructive on that I encountered more often.

One need only look at the recent New Jersey special election for the senate to see what women voting will tend to give you (though I don't think Senators should be elected in the first place). Besides, voting shouldn't even have the consequences on the public at large that it does.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

excellent point Bill3

And let's just take this point a little further. In the 1950s oil billionaire E Howard Hunt, proposed a far more fair voter system to our democracy. He believed that wealthier people of this country deserve to have more votes then poor people in this country.

It was simply a matter of who has contributed more to the society he believed that since he was paying more in taxes than everyone else he deserved more votes.

He had the idea that John D Rockefeller deserved say maybe 20 votes to a man who earned a middle-class living deserved 10 votes and for the very poor one-vote. After all poor people are far less educated and are just simply too ignorant to have the same amount of votes as he did.This sounds like something that you would condone according to your suffrage theory am I correct?

Oh, brother!

While I have made many sexist comments about women ("They are like cats; they cannot be trained and they are a delightful mystery, even to themselves"), I would NEVER collectively dismiss them. Look at the examples of some of the greatest military and political leaders in History, from Mulan (the Warrior Princess) to Theodora of Byzantium to Joan of Arc to Elizabeth I to Mary, Queen of Scots to Catherine the Great to, yes, even Golda Meir. I do NOT see child bearing as an end in itself. My gosh, if it had been up to Paul and Buddha, the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

One can make the argument that, end and of itself, NOTHING has any real purpose in life. God himself seems interested in only two things, creation and entertainment. Creation brings with it destruction; which, apparently, is part of the entertainment.

Even males with same-sex preferences acknowledge the value of women; and most are not interested in shtuping them; and, let us not forget, men only elected our two worst presidents, Lincoln and Wilson.

In my household my vote is worth 51%

I bring the most income in the household, would make sense I get what I want. It's kind of ironic right? Nevertheless voting only matters for those who count the ballots.

More gender-neutral :)

Re-thinking Universal Suffrage. No representation without taxation -
http://www.dailypaul.com/303073/no-representation-without-ta...

I downvoted you, Bill

And I'm a guy.

pr0 b ghey

pr0 b ghey

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

The suffraging of women must stop!

We must find a way to end this barbarity!

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Well

Diddy says rock the vote!

and in this day and age my argument trumps your wall of text. Get with the times man. Voting is cool.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Universal suffrage is for the birds

It is and should be a privilege, all anyone has to do, is watch a few Mark Dice videos to hammer that point home.

It shouldn't matter what color, creed or gender a voter is, but they should have a basic understanding of civics and free market principles.

All that is required these days is a pulse and ability to sign ones own name, and in some cases not even that.

kudos to Faithkills, for quoting Bastiat

Who remembers the SuffroJet?

"I vote for justice!"

BILL3, are you Sarcastro?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Keep 'em coming, BILL3

Looking forward to your "Rethinking Slavery" piece

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

lol

.

John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn once said...

John Wayne playing the part of a tough western marshal Rooster Cogburn made a statement predicting this. While tracking down a crew of bad guys he came across a couple of tag alongs that had been burned out by the bad guys.

The tag alongs were a young indian boy and a preacher's daughter played by Katharine Hepburn. He tried to leave them at the trading post along the way with absolutely no success. He explained how dangerous it was going to get when he met up with these guys.

Katharine Hepburn would not take no for an answer and took off like a crazy woman possessed with revenge ahead of Rooster and the Indian boy. Rooster looked at the boy and said "God help us if they ever give them the vote!" lol.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

The problem is not women voting.

The problem is the power of the majority to vote to deprive a minority of their property for its own benefit. Eliminate that and give farm animals suffrage. That does not matter as long as an individual is secure in his property rights.
When the power to vote is the power to steal, and those voting believe they have more to gain than lose by doing so, we will remain on the road we are on. That will end when there is no longer anything to steal.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, but people believe they can simply vote sandwiches and potato chips into existence while denouncing those who do not as selfish, hateful, and just downright mean. Of course magic exists. It is right there in that electronic Deibold voting machine made by Santa.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Exactly

Anarcho-capitalism has suggested some more saner methods of voting and governing without introducing coercion
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/hans-hermann-hoppe/an-act...

Really?

But once the deed was done and the woman was now half or more of the voting herd, what happened to politics? Politics has become a sissified arena of marketing, expensive haircuts and playing on feelings. We haven't had a bearded president since Grizzly Adams. Political taverns and clubs have gone away. There is no more blood in politics or brawls. The entire masculine energy has been shifted to professional sports.

So the degradation of maleness in politics is all to be blamed on women getting the right to vote. Typical of the male...blame anyone but himself. Have the cajones to look at your own faults and correct the mistakes made therein. Stop blaming your short-comings on the weaker vessel that you apparently see as pretty much useless. The problem in politics is selfish ambition and it knows no gender.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I don't accept the premise

I don't accept the premise that women are inherently more "emotional spirits" than men. I'd grant that women tend to, say, cry more readily. But crying is a physical manifestation of one emotion. Are you so sure that women get angry, jealous, exhilarated, and content more readily than men? If we were to take anger, for example, would we find that women manifest that emotion more readily than men? Would we find women manifesting contentment more than men?

It seems to me that decision-making is optimized when men and women work through ideas and choices together. We could perhaps build an argument that women's suffrage eroded this joint decision-making process. We could build an argument that before women's suffrage, a woman had no choice but to discuss and debate political choices with her man if she wanted to participate in the political realm. We could say the same if we took away men's right to vote; he would then by necessity have to work through ideas with his woman if he wished to have a say. Perhaps disenfranchising one sex or the other would lead to more joint decision making.

Could be true. Today, men and women are both free to cast a vote without working through ideas with anyone. We find our little tribe of like-minded folks and ride the same elevator to the same floor. We're all able to retain our narrow-minded, sex-typed, short-sighted, tribal, selfish ways in the voting booth. Those qualities are equally bestowed on both men and women.

TwelveOhOne's picture

I am male, and cry for multiple emotions

You said: "But crying is a physical manifestation of one emotion."

I cry when I'm happy, and I cry when I'm sad. I cry when my headaches are so severe that merely putting my hands on my head and breathing deeply doesn't alleviate them. I cry when I think about my wife, who I love so deeply. I cry when I listen to powerful music, which isn't necessarily happy or sad, it's "just" mathematics put together so divinely.

Anyway, just wanted to refute that one sentence.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Women's suffrage isn't the problem, suffrage is

Per Bastiat

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

The solution is restrict monopoly law to it's only plausible moral function or remove the institution of monopoly law altogether.

If there is little or nothing to vote on then who does or does not vote matters little or not at all.

It's the fact that people delude themselves into thinking theft, murder, and enslavement done in the anonymity of the voting booth is somehow not theft, murder and enslavement that creates the Ring of Power, the Ring of Democracy that all men must fight over.

Even if they do not initially intend to use it for aggression, they must seek it to protect themselves. Having seized it for themselves defensively, they will be corrupted by it as democracy is corruption. There is nothing democracy can do that isn't aggression. If it is not aggression, you don't need democracy to do it.

The Ring of Democracy cannot be used safely. It cannot even exist safely. Even nuclear weapons can exist and harm no one. But democracy cannot exist without harm. It's very existence threatens humanity with slavery, oppression and extinction.

The problem with voting isn't women

In the beginning the rally cry for the revolution was, "no taxation without representation", now we have representation without taxation. Too many people are voting that don't have any skin in the game. So they vote for whatever politician who promises the most "free" benefits for them. So the solution is, if you are a net contributor you vote, if not, you can't vote. If you have to earn a right to vote, it's a whole lot more valuable and informed than if it's not earned. (Expect a fight from the AARP, LOL)

My children taught me this logic, "Dad, do I have to use my money to buy this"?

It's not entirely a gender problem.

As a woman, I understand the concerns about how easily women are influenced by emotional arguments. I will freely admit that, for many women, facts often take a back seat to feelings, but I'm not certain that the issue is entirely about gender. Women are and have always been expected to be emotional. It's all around us. In movies, songs, literature, and even in our own families, we are taught that women are emotional creatures. I'm not going to say that women don't have some natural tendency to be more emotional. I don't know. If that is true, it seems that little trait skipped me, and I'm so very glad it did.

In contrast, in earlier times, men were expected to act logically. For a long time, logic was taught in universities. That doesn't happen as much anymore. Boys were neither expected nor allowed to show as much emotion. I'm not saying that's a particularly good thing, but it was the reality. Men are now being pushed to be more emotional, and, from all I've seen, a lot of them are actually going along with it. While it may be a good thing for men to be able to express themselves emotionally without fear of being ridiculed, emotion must always be tempered with reason. That's not happening anymore. In addition, a large number of boys are being raised without any meaningful contact with their fathers.

So the problem, as I see it, is the severe lack of reason and logic and too much focus on emotion. Before long, everyone is going to be voting based solely on feelings, and that would be a very bad thing, indeed. So I'm thinking that we need to start focusing on teaching both our sons and our daughters how to actually think instead of just feel.

The United States

could cut down on the number of abortions by amending the constitution to require all males between the ages of 13-35 to have vesectomies. Women missed the boat on his practical solution to pregnancy.

Banning alcohol was indeed promoted by women and the constitution was amended to reflect their views on men who drink, and then brutalize their wives and children. Women missed the boat by not realizing alcohol wasn't the problem. These men were abhorrent brutes drunk or sober and should have been kicked out of the house long ago. Consider, for a moment, it is not the quantity of family, but the quality of family.

Women deferred to the political views of their husbands and boyfriends and look where that got us. If people find abortion so distasteful, why do women have children only to watch our children killed in wars men start? Women finally took a stand and stopped being brood mares for the state. That's a good thing.

There's no doubt America is a patriarchal society. I merely wonder, at times, what makes us so proud of it?

Allison Bricker's picture

Suffrage Should be a Privilege

It occurs to me that the problem is not on which sex, race, religion, sexuality, or any other immutable people group one may call home. For me the reason voting has come to be meaningless is as Bastiat wrote, those who own not one iota of property are gifted the privilege to vote away the property of other folks. Thus, it is no surprise when a politician promises non-stop goodies to those who have never experienced the thrill of building or saving up for their own little slice, that they flock to said candidate, yes Bill even those overly emotional males.

The consequence is really two-fold, it of course causes harm to the Productive Class by making it more difficult for them to provide for their own life/family, but also indentures a dependent class who loses self-motivation and engenders a sense of entitlement.

Well

The Grange was one of the biggest political backers of women's sufferage, because as people migrated west, many times a women would be left with a farm, and some women were very good at managing a farm, and rather than the state take the farm from the women and sell it to a man, the Grange got involved for women farmers.. many states that had Granges had women voting long before it becmae National.. CA women had the right to vote in 1909.

Susan B. Anthony once said, "I can tell a Granger woman for as far as I can see her, the way she carries herself as a man." She was not talking about cross dressing. She was talking about women like Ayn Rand.

Ironically, the stay at home mom option

is now considered a luxury few families can afford. I know many working women who would love to be stay at home mothers and homemakers. They mourn the days of old when that was the norm.

Speaking as a woman, I can see how the *right to work* has morphed into *have to work* and nowadays, women are forced into being competitive in the work market, and setting aside having children until their later years, if at all.

The sad thing, is that if you looked at the economics of it; often these working moms, if they're working minimum wage jobs, aren't really bringing in enough to justify working (gas, car expenses, work wardrobe, daycare, after school care, summer camp, and the lack of quality time with the family or for herself) If the father isn't pulling his share of the household chores, she has double duty and stress. Hence, the nagging, tired wife syndrome....leading to conflict, divorce, etc..)

Single women in the dating world are being viewed and *comparison shopped* now not only for their physical attributes, but as to what they can bring to the relationship financially, so what did they win?

RP R3VOLution

fireant's picture

What did they win?

They won enslavement, for it now takes the income of one spouse just to pay taxes.

Undo what Wilson did

I dunno, maybe the founders

I dunno, maybe the founders got it backwards. Maybe women should have been given the vote and men denied it.

Women mature earlier and they tend to be more nurturing and empathetic. Would the country have been so involved in wars had women been at the helm? How much innovation was lost from the deaths of those millions of American men during our various wars?

On the other hand, we might conclude that the country would be entirely socialist under women rule. They do tend to vote with bleeding hearts. I mean, can you imagine a succession of President Oprahs?

But on second thought, we have to conclude that we'd be just as capitalist as now, maybe more so. Why? 'Cause women like their stuff! In fact, women like their stuff, and like more of it, than most men. Give a guy a nice car, a pimped out entertainment center and a decent grill and he's happy. Women on the other hand have no limits.

I mean, isn't married life for a guy pretty much all about working to get the woman her stuff? (In order to get into her stuff?)

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie