Friday, April 10, 2015

Why women opposed women's suffrage

As is so often the case, the Left's historical revisionism of history would have us believe that women uniformly supported female suffrage. This is not true, in fact, a majority of women opposed it, and for the same reasons they should oppose it today:
The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage.... all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today.

Ultimate History Project writes,

    One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

    Dr. Anna Shaw, President of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association called anti-suffragists the “home, hearth and mother crowd.”  Obviously, she was not interested in any of these identities.  When asked why there was no marriage in heaven, Dr. Shaw brazenly responded, “Because there are no men in heaven.” Like many suffragettes, she felt that men were not necessary and women, banding together could take care of themselves and live happily ever-after in a female-dominated world and after-life.
If you read the works of the anti-suffragettes and compare them to the works of the pro-suffragettes, you will rapidly reach the correct conclusion: the anti-suffragettes were right.

Voting is not freedom. And freedom is not best protected by democracy, especially not faux democracy of the sort that involve asking a majority female electorate which of the two con artists on offer they would most prefer to rule over them. 

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Voting is not freedom. And freedom is not best protected by democracy, especially not faux democracy of the sort that involve asking a majority female electorate which of the two con artists on offer they would most prefer to rule over them.

I will paraphrase and share this as often as possible . . . and credit you.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Under Provisional Government of National Restoration (PGNR), women and non-whites will not be allowed to vote.

"The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro."

Alas, so many women never realize it, and some don't wake up until it's too late.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Because, Holy Scripture inculcates a different and for us a higher sphere, apart from public life.[...]
[...]Because we hold that an extension of suffrage would be adverse to the interests of the working-women of the country, with whom we heartily sympathize.
Because these changes must introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation, which would tend to the infinite detriment of children, and increase the already alarming prevalence of divorce throughout the land. [...]
[...]For these, and many more reasons, do we beg of your wisdom that no law extending suffrage to women may be passed, as the passage of such law would be fraught with danger so grave to the general order of the country." - Mrs. Madeline Vinton Dahlgren Thoughts on Female Suffrage and in Vindication of Women's True Rights 1871

Keef said...

"Voting is not freedom. And freedom is not best protected by democracy, especially not faux democracy of the sort that involve asking a majority female electorate which of the two con artists on offer they would most prefer to rule over them."

I'll highlight it again because people do not generally understand the importance of this concept. I'd gladly never vote again if it meant I got to be free from government interference for the rest of my life.

Trust said...

Aside from the fact that "having it all" is not possible, it's amazing that those who aspire to have both family and career usually prioritize the one that can wait and postpone the one that has a biological limit.

Aquila Aquilonis said...

Any chance you can create a link to the whole graduating gamma series that would be possible to share the series as a whole with gammas?

Bob Loblaw said...

Like many suffragettes, she felt that men were not necessary and women, banding together could take care of themselves and live happily ever-after in a female-dominated world and after-life.

So basically the lesbians have been running the movement from the beginning?

pdwalker said...

So basically the lesbians have been running the movement from the beginning?

that, and those ones who were far too ugly to breed.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Lips that touch liquor shall never touch ours!

Same crowd.

little dynamo said...

"And freedom is not best protected by democracy, especially not faux democracy of the sort that involve asking a majority female electorate which of the two con artists on offer they would most prefer to rule over them."


The con artists don't rule over the female electorate. They are the servants and enablers of the female electorate. Have been for decades. More like a century, actually.

The fascists pushing the Womans Nation narrative are well-aware that the U.S. and other western democracies already ARE womens' nations. Right now the Almighty People are very fat, and largely OK with totalitarianism . . . as long as their own lives are largely unaffected. I.E. somebody else is taking the hits.


This is the modern democratic system. Only an extremely wealthy and powerful empire can afford to disenfranchise, demonize, and criminalize 'her' males -- and that, only for a limited time. Eventually the goodwill, intellectual/creative capital, and money run out. Then it's time to re-ramp the scapegoat machine and triple-down on emotional agitprop. Oh, and to 'elect' a representative of the Good Gender. You know, to show the world that America is no longer such an Oppressive Patriarchy!

liberranter said...

Elections in general are akin to leaving your car keys and your debit card (with PIN number written on the back of the card) on the table in your unlocked house. Letting women participate in elections is akin to luring your next-door neighbor's unsupervised teenagers into that house.

Retrenched said...

Dont forget the first suffragists wanted the vote so they could control men's lifestyle and entertainment choices, namely by banning alcohol and prostitution.

Good to know some things never change I guess.

Retrenched said...

Dont forget the first suffragists wanted the vote so they could control men's lifestyle and entertainment choices, namely by banning alcohol and prostitution.

Good to know some things never change I guess.

Rantor said...

During this whole Sad Puppies campaign, I came across an SJW Womyn (is that singular or should I use Grrl) who actually told another person "Don't be a vagina." I think it was supposed to be synomous with don't be a dick... anyway that was definitely pushing their feminist campaign... i could only laugh.

Rantor said...

@Retrenched, but men already banned both alcohol (ammendment passed in 1919, in force in 1920) and prostitution was mostly illegal in the US before giving womyn the vote (1920). Certainly a lot of womyn supported prohibition. But Susan B. Anthony was an anti-slavery crusader and women's rightist bent on achieving sexual and racial equality.

Anonymous said...

Gamma or Omega?

Link Link

Anonymous said...

@Dave

The only complicating factor is that Vox claims, "Omegas are either indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury". Skippy isn't either way; he likes women just fine, but is absolutely hopeless with them. Perhaps because he isn't totally indifferent or hopelessly bitter toward women, he could become a Sigma given the proper guidance and training much more readily than other types of Omegas.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

@ Eric, yes I'd 2nd that lesbians and feminists are running the age long meme, in their wrong headedness they thought freedom brings freedom, voting brings freedom, it has not. The women voting for the last so many decades and absurd elections sunk America which is now Post Americant in culture, language and totalitarianism.

Women voting, this hideous obsession with non issues has delivered a failed economy that has no hope.

Anonymous said...

@Dave

I'd still say he's an Omega, but also that there are three types of Omega rather than two:

1) Bitter Omegas. These are essentially very low Gammas, such as Elliot Rodger or Frankenstein's Monster. Poster "aeolipera" on here claims to be one as well, and confirms that his type were often once Gammas who crashed and burned too much over the years.

2) Indifferent Omegas. Have no interest in women. In the Middle Ages, would have probably become priests or monks. Nikola Tesla, and possibly Isaac Newton (if he wasn't Lambda), were other famous examples. They're far more like Sigmas, and is probably the best potential Sigma material. If they do make the transition, it's because they had a pleasant fling or two and decided that maybe women are enjoyable after all.

3) Omega babyfaces, or perhaps, "Immature Omegas". A tentative definition, as many of them never mature out. But as you pointed out, they seem to be like very low Deltas in many respects, as they are not indifferent to women. Consequently, they are probably in actuality more likely to become Sigma or Sigma-esque Delta than the indifferent Omega, even though the transition won't be as easy or seamless as it would be for an indifferent Omega.

So, in summary, the three types of Omega may possibly be thought of as very low analogues of Gamma, Sigma, and Delta respectively.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm a stay-at-home mother of three and I'm glad I can vote. Don't be fooled, I'm highly educated and well-versed in several subjects. Despite having days when I literally didn't bother to brush my hair because of babies, I've always kept up with the political times. The whole voting process is screwed, but not voting is just taking the easy way out. That way you get to complain and not take any responsibility. I'm not sure if women can have it all. Some are better at balancing work and home better than others. I'm not one of them. It's not one of my strengths and so I chose family. Maybe one day when my children are older I will pursue a career more fervently.

Anonymous said...

@Dave

CH goes strictly by sexual success only, so all two (or three, by me) types of Vox Omega would be CH omegas. Vox Gammas and Deltas are both CH betas, but I've tried to disambiguate them in the comboxes by using CH's sarcastic term "bitterbeta" to refer to Vox Gammas, and even by using the combined term "bitterbetas/gammas".

RM was, from what I gather, very much like Skippy. Probably the same type of Omega. Members of very traditional religions (barring Muslim-style rumspringen hypocrisy) have that kind of problem. I'm a traditionalist Catholic, and was much the same way. In fact, it's a reliable pattern... young traditionalist Catholic women tend to snag Deltas from the broader society and convert them, but the men, aside from the more alpha types, tend to end up Omega'ing out.

Anonymous said...

really nice

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.