Another Woman Who Hates Her Gender

[debrand]

terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-trouble-with-the-womens-vote/

I have been considering for several years now the reality that the 19th amendment has done more harm than good. The system whereby a man’s vote was representative of his entire family is preferable to me. I feel so strongly about it that I vote in line with my husband even when I’d rather write in the most radical libertarian candidate I can think of.

Under the current system, she can make a decision to vote the same way as her husband. She gets a say.

She quotes another woman:

Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society. A woman no longer has any need of a man. Marriage no longer serves any practical purpose. A woman can whore around and have as many fatherless children as she pleases, and Pimp Daddy Government will always be there to provide. Men have learned well from this, too. Men can also slut it up to their heart’s content knowing that the government will take care of their “women†and raise their children for them. Fathering children no longer binds a man to a woman in any way. Men didn’t vote to societally castrate themselves, and never would have. No – in order for this system to have come about, women’s suffrage was an absolute necessity. Women themselves voted the system into place which objectifies and devalues both them AND their children.

[YPestis]

Well, fundie education evidently teaches that fathers never abandoned wives and children in the past, and women had premarital sex before the gov't was allowed to step in to provide. Of course not. There were no single moms and no impoverished women and children whose husband gambled their money away and left them destitute. That never happened. And of course, as long as the women were helpless, men were generous and took responsibility! Those were the days when men were MEN and women were helpless little emotional wrecks. I didn't realize that good, Christian men would only take responsibility if they knew their women had to be under their control, or that women would only act responsibly if they knew that they would otherwise be destitute.

[Emme]

definitely read Satan as Santa... wishful thinking!

[RosyDaisy]

I think this it's what happens when one is so brainwashed and mentally and emotionally beaten down. In some ways I feel sorry for them, but when they spout such hateful things what pity I have goes flying out the window.

[doggie]

I tink the oppression and control is way more Likely to invite satan in. Wine you can't question or think on your own you Are open for easy control..

[darareaksmey]

Next, the issue of disenfranchisement. I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised. Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individuals’ votes. What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried – and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government. It was all part of the plan, kids. All part of the plan.

Wait, what? A woman's vote automatically cancels out her husband's, but that doesn't happen between any two other random unmarried people? This is making my head hurt.

[darareaksmey]

......and then I went back to the website and read the comments and my head began to hurt even more, because the comments made me choose to bang my head against the wall in frustration. I cannot even comprehend the self-loathing that manifests itself in the view that one should vote the same as one's husband in order for household harmony to be preserved. Decent government, responsive to the needs and wants of the people, be damned, I guess. Oh, and some of the commenters would require property ownership, payment of taxes, etc., before a person had the vote. Stupefying.

[debrand]

Next, the issue of disenfranchisement. I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised. Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individuals’ votes. What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried – and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government. It was all part of the plan, kids. All part of the plan.

Wait, what? A woman's vote automatically cancels out her husband's, but that doesn't happen between any two other random unmarried people? This is making my head hurt.

That is a good point. No one would ever vote if they stopped to consider that other votes might cancel out theirs.

I'm somewhat amused that she thinks the government is in some sort of complicated conspiracy to obliterated the vote of married people. Although I am not a amused that she considers unmarried people to be stupid.

[debrand]

......and then I went back to the website and read the comments and my head began to hurt even more, because the comments made me choose to bang my head against the wall in frustration. I cannot even comprehend the self-loathing that manifests itself in the view that one should vote the same as one's husband in order for household harmony to be preserved. Decent government, responsive to the needs and wants of the people, be damned, I guess. Oh, and some of the commenters would require property ownership, payment of taxes, etc., before a person had the vote. Stupefying.

Sadly, the idea that only certain people are qualified to vote is not new among the right.

clclt.com/theclog/archives/2010/12/01/tea-party-leader-says-only-property-owners-should-vote

The group called Tea Party Nation has its own weekly radio show. ThinkProgress is reporting that during a recent show, the president of Tea Party Nation (TPN), Judson Phillips, declared that voting rights in America should be restricted to property owners

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201110040015

KING: As I roll this thing back and I think of American history, there was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game.

Now we have data out there that shows that 47 percent of American households don't pay taxes, 51 percent of American wage-earners don't have an income tax liability. And it's pretty clear that there are a lot of people who are not in the workforce at all. In fact, of our unemployment numbers — that run in the 13 or 14 million category — when you go to the Department of Labor Statistics and you look at that data, you can add up those that are simply not in the workforce of different age groups, but of working age, add that number to the number of those who are on unemployment and you come up with a number that was just a few months ago 80 million Americans. Just over a month ago that number went over 100 million Americans that aren't working.

Now I don't think they're paying taxes. But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits.

[klf7412]

I tink the oppression and control is way more Likely to invite satan in. Wine you can't question or think on your own you Are open for easy control..

This! You are so right !!!eleventy!!

[quaterofaquiver]

Well, fundie education evidently teaches that fathers never abandoned wives and children in the past, and women had premarital sex before the gov't was allowed to step in to provide. Of course not. There were no single moms and no impoverished women and children whose husband gambled their money away and left them destitute. That never happened. And of course, as long as the women were helpless, men were generous and took responsibility! Those were the days when men were MEN and women were helpless little emotional wrecks. I didn't realize that good, Christian men would only take responsibility if they knew their women had to be under their control, or that women would only act responsibly if they knew that they would otherwise be destitute.

yeah what you said :clap:

[SealFan1963]

This woman needs to watch A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. . .