Oh, the horrors of female suffrage!

[YPestis]

The funny thing is most of these men yearning for the good old days would probably spend their lives in back breaking labor, getting pushed around by someone else. It's not like every white male experienced the White Male Privilege. You must have money, and lots of it.

In most households, the father made the most money but the wife and kids also earned income because father could not provide for all. These MRAs, like fundie women, don't realize that most people did not live the Victorian ideal. Many women worked as maids or had home businesses. Other wives toiled on farms or factories. Children were put to work as early as possible. I wonder how 'manly' these men feel to know they probably could never provide for their families even back then?

Worse, many of these men would never get married. Or stay married. Eligibility for marriage for men was determined by ability to provide. The modern MRAs think that if women were denied political and economic rights, then it would easy pickings for any men to find a wife. However, the reality was that women treated husband hunting like a job search: they gravitated towards wealth and prestige. If these MRA men are losers now, there was a bigger chance they were losers back then.

Childbirth the way it was, it was common to have to marry again and again. Or, if you were poorer, you end up unable to find anyone willing to take on a widower with young kids so the husband is pushed into further penury state. It turns out women actually did provide financial help in those days. They provided free childcare (because daycare was nonexistent). They did all the heavy labor associated with running a household that machines have not been invented yet for. More importantly, many did all that while still bringing in vital income. These MRAs would find women scarce for them unless they were the one percenter men because of the high pregnancy mortality rate so have fun being a single dad.

The thing is, life was hard for everyone back then. By depriving women of their economic and political rights, it only impoverished families because able and intelligent women were not allowed access to top jobs. The majority of men did not have it easier in finding a wife, because women would gravitate towards men with wealth. Sometimes, I think fundies live in a delusional world where unicorns abound and everyone slept on rainbows.

[meda]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. I have written an anecdote about this:

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.c ... ed-states/

Actually, no. Multiple studies have demonstrated that both men and women prefer attractive candidates and both sexes equate attractiveness with competency.

http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/toward- ... andidates/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... cians.html

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

1917 called, it wants it's paternalism back. Are you seriously arguing that women shouldn't vote? Have you also also tackled such hot button topics as the immorality of jazz and the dangers of those new-fangled horseless carriages?

[EmiGirl]

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

What if we don't agree with what our father/husband/brother/etc wants to vote for? My husband and I are pretty dang far apart on the political spectrum. I certainly don't want him voting for me! I like my right to birth control and healthcare and I actually support other women's right to choose. My BC and healthcare are very important to me and in my best interest because of health conditions and I KNOW my husband would not vote for it.

Edited to add: I would also like for my cousin to be able to move back home to a country where she and her wife would be recognized.

[RachelB]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. I have written an anecdote about this:

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.c ... ed-states/

Men are more likely to take a long view of things and are generally less swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate. At the time that the nineteenth amendment was passed by the senate, it was not particular popular with the common folk. Even as it was being ratified, most states passed it by rather narrow margins.

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

You are welcome not to vote, sunshinemary. I am welcome to think you're foolish for throwing your citizenship rights away, but whatever. It's your choice to do so.

Do not tell me what to do.

[Sobeknofret]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. I have written an anecdote about this:

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.c ... ed-states/

Men are more likely to take a long view of things and are generally less swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate. At the time that the nineteenth amendment was passed by the senate, it was not particular popular with the common folk. Even as it was being ratified, most states passed it by rather narrow margins.

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

Speak for yourself. I'm neither short-sighted nor emotional when it comes to electing the people who will represent me politically. Sexual attractiveness? I wouldn't know what most candidates even look like!

[ILoveJellybeans]

I think its sad that there are women out there who have such a low opinion of themselves that they dont think theyre intelligent and rational enough to vote :(

[samurai_sarah]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. (snip)

Only someone who has never attended a football game would think that men are less emotional. :lol:

Men are more likely to take a long view of things and are generally less swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate. At the time that the nineteenth amendment was passed by the senate, it was not particular popular with the common folk. Even as it was being ratified, most states passed it by rather narrow margins.

Looking at the last politician I voted for, trust me, I was not swayed by his attractiveness. He promised me a local bottle-bank, to recycle glass (local council elections). I kinda want to save the planet for future generations- is that long-term enough for you? The one before that, I voted for a party, but believe you me, there is very little that's attractive about the party-leader, except his policies.

But that aside, "popular" doesn't mean "right". You might say that the Nazi-party was very popular in Germany once. They were still horrifically wrong.

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

:lol: Oh, wait, you're serious. You know what, if you believe that, please don't vote. I hope you're an example of your own philosophies! And while you're at it, stop trying to interfere with everyone else's right to vote.

eta: Godwinned myself there, damnit.

[RosyDaisy]

sunshinemary, you are seriously delusional if you think men as whole will always vote for what is in our best interests. I supposed though, it would be in your best interest because you consider yourself nothing more than a slave belonging to your husband.

[Claddagh]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. I have written an anecdote about this:

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.c ... ed-states/

Men are more likely to take a long view of things and are generally less swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate. At the time that the nineteenth amendment was passed by the senate, it was not particular popular with the common folk. Even as it was being ratified, most states passed it by rather narrow margins.

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

Then do us all a favor and never cast your vote.

[Anxious Girl]

The reason why I oppose female suffrage is because women are much more emotional and are easily manipulated. Women are swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate rather than his voting record. We also tend to be short-sighted. I have written an anecdote about this:

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.c ... ed-states/

Men are more likely to take a long view of things and are generally less swayed by the sexual attractiveness of the candidate. At the time that the nineteenth amendment was passed by the senate, it was not particular popular with the common folk. Even as it was being ratified, most states passed it by rather narrow margins.

Women do not need the right to vote if our husbands and fathers have that right. They will not vote against our best interests and are likely to make better fiscal and social policy choices. Women generally tend toward socialism, which is always an eventual failure everywhere it is attempted.

Lead by example if you want fellow girls and women to follow you: shut up and stay home and close your blog; because according to your philosophy; women aren't smart and are easily manipulated, so why do you have a blog? What makes you so superior in your philosophy that you can't be manipulated by men (and only other women you deem who are unGodly in your eyes when Christians aren't supposed to judge others because only God can)? If you're against feminism which gives women choice; I don't respect you. Do as you preach and never speak unless spoken to by a man. Why are you here? Are you part of God's Special Snowflakes Club here to proselytize the ways of Godly womenhood when you don't do as you preach?

You're a hypocritical bitch.

P.S: Just because you have a blog doesn't mean that others can't critique and make fun of it on other forums. It isn't stalking because then would commenting and discussing on articles on different websites be stalking also? That's like saying it's against the law for bloggers and other forums for discussing a news article that isn't a part of the website negatively. Freedom of expression doesn't mean you're free from people disagreeing with you. Deal with it.

[sunshinemary]

@ Meda

The first study you linked to was conducted in 1975. Do you suppose that sociological research from 1975, when the divorce epidemic and female careerism were just beginning to take off, is really valid for assessing the voting preferences of modern women?

The second article says nothing other than both men and women preferred more attractive candidates. It did not say whether they equally preferred them or not, so it is not relevant to the question at hand

@ YPestis

While your comment is interesting and worth considering, it has nothing to do with voting. Modern life in this post industrial age is quite different than life one hundred years ago, but that does not mean that human nature has changed. Men were created to lead. Women are meant to follow their loving leadership.

There simply is no need for women to vote.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

@ YPestis

While your comment is interesting and worth considering, it has nothing to do with voting. Modern life in this post industrial age is quite different than life one hundred years ago, but that does not mean that human nature has changed. Men were created to lead. Women are meant to follow their loving leadership.

There simply is no need for women to vote.

Do you ever look around you? Human "nature" has changed quite considerably. Please open a social history book. Please consider primary resources. Please...actually, don't bother. Just stick with your beliefs and don't vote, okay?

[August]

What astounds me is that there are WOMEN who don't believe women should vote.

By the way, hypothetically, what would any of you do if you found out your husband/partner didn't think women should vote, but wasn't vocal about it.

Divorce. I'd like to think that you couldn't hold that opinion and come across as a normal likeable person.

Plus, http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=IYQhRCs9 ... YQhRCs9IHM

[Jinger Jar]

sunshinemary, how do you reconcile what you're saying with the Church's position that it's a moral obligation for all Catholics - not just male Catholics - to actively participate in political life? How is disenfranchisement justice for women? How does disenfranchisement create a society in which women are not oppressed? What Church teachings have guided your thinking that women should be disenfranchised? How can Catholic women be faithful citizens if they are stripped of the most powerful tools they have to work towards justice and peace - their vote?

I don't know if you are authentic, or you just want to get a bunch of people riled up. If you are the latter, I hope your search for amusement hasn't upset too many. If, however, you are the former, I hope you seek the guidance of a good and holy priest ASAP before more Catholics think they have properly formed their consciences with your misguided ideas.

And if you are authentic, please reflect on this prayer for Catholic voters:

Almighty God,

As Catholic citizens of the United States, we ask for Your blessing.

Impress upon us the importance of our voting privileges. May we apply the moral teachings of our Catholic faith to the decisions we make.

We pray for ourselves and for our elected officials. May we help the unempowered and put those who are suffering before ourselves. May we be open to the promptings of Your Spirit, sensitive to Your will, and willing to seek Your grace.

Gracious Lord, have mercy on our country. Preserve us as a God-fearing nation, ever ready to profess, defend, and seek Your wisdom.

Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of our United States, pray for us!

Amen

[Anxious Girl]

sunshinemary; why are you still talking/typing? Aren't you a stupid woman?

[meda]

@ Meda

The first study you linked to was conducted in 1975. Do you suppose that sociological research from 1975, when the divorce epidemic and female careerism were just beginning to take off, is really valid for assessing the voting preferences of modern women?

The second article says nothing other than both men and women preferred more attractive candidates. It did not say whether they equally preferred them or not, so it is not relevant to the question at hand

@ YPestis

While your comment is interesting and worth considering, it has nothing to do with voting. Modern life in this post industrial age is quite different than life one hundred years ago, but that does not mean that human nature has changed. Men were created to lead. Women are meant to follow their loving leadership.

There simply is no need for women to vote.

Given that in 1975 women had been voting for 50 years, yes I think it's valid. Also, this "careerism" you speak of: according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, in 1975, 39% of women were in the workforce, in 2010 it was 47%. Why would an at 8% change make that much of a difference in voting preferences? Further, divorce rates in the US are lower now then in 1979, so what does that have to do with voting patterns of the modern woman? This is a nice short article that explains the math:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opini ... lfers.html

Also, in the second study I linked, the researchers do not give the breakdown male and female test subjects, here is the full paper:

http://ftp.iza.org/dp2311.pdf

In this 2008 study, researchers found that men were more likely to vote for an attractive female candidate, and women for a more approachable male candidate, thus demonstrating that both genders are subject to emotions.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0003666

This 2009 study used an equal number of male and female test subjects, both genders prefer good looking candidates.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/BeautifulPoliticians.pdf

Your premise that women vote on looks more than men fails. If you want to believe that women shouldn't vote, then fine I guess, but don't use "the women are influenced by the sexy" trope to support your arguement.

[lilah]

Ssm even if your argument about women being more irrational voters were true even though it's not women still have to follow the same laws and pay the same taxes rates. Disenfranchising people because they just might vote in a way you don't approve is undemocratic.

[salex]

Ssm even if your argument about women being more irrational voters were true even though it's not women still have to follow the same laws and pay the same taxes rates. Disenfranchising people because they just might vote in a way you don't approve is undemocratic.

Plus, there is nothing to suggest that women are less rational than men. Who gets in more violent fights, men or women? What group is arrested for aggression more often (ie, unable to manage their emotions rationally?) men or women? Honestly, assuming men are less emotional is ignoring vast amounts of evidence to the contrary.

[Claddagh]

While your comment is interesting and worth considering, it has nothing to do with voting. Modern life in this post industrial age is quite different than life one hundred years ago, but that does not mean that human nature has changed.

Human nature has actually changed quite a bit. Nothing remains the same. Crack open a history book and you'll find out how much humanity has changed.

Men were created to lead. Women are meant to follow their loving leadership.

Excuse me while I go puke in the nearest wastebasket.

People need to learn how to get along together. Women can be leaders just as easilly as a man can.

There simply is no need for women I to vote.

Fixed that for you.

[docmom]

SSM, if women are emotional and easily swayed should we be making any serious decisions at all or does our emtional nature only manifest itself in the voting booth? Should I, as a female physician, no longer be allowed to prescribe medications in case my emotional lability causes me to overlook scientific facts. Maybe women shouldn't be allowed to drive. What would happen if I knew that I had to stop at a traffic light, but my emotions said to continue on through? I'm sure you are against women owning and operating firearms. Think of the carnage that could ensue! Universal sufferage is a cornerstone of our democracy. If you don't like it I suggest you try Saudi Arabia.

[lilah]

Sometimes I do wonder what would happen if we gave fundies their own state (Missippi or Arkansas) to make a Christianized Taliban but I doubt the Catholics could get along with the Protestants (not to mention all the subcults in the protestants).

[valsa]

Universal sufferage is a cornerstone of our democracy. If you don't like it I suggest you try Saudi Arabia.

Hell, apparently even women in Saudi Arabia are going to be able to vote come 2015.

[salex]

Sometimes I do wonder what would happen if we gave fundies their own state (Missippi or Arkansas) to make a Christianized Taliban but I doubt the Catholics could get along with the Protestants (not to mention all the subcults in the protestants).

Kansas seems to be going that way. Most moderate republicans were defeated last year during the primary. Often dems don't bother to run (we had none run against the sitting republican congressperson from our district). Brownback is trying to set things up so that he appoints judges without the traditional input / interference of people experienced in the legal field, because several of his programs have been stopped by the Judicial branch. He killed our state arts program, saying it should all be funded by private donors, and has been trying to get a chapel built in the capitol building. It was supposed to be eccumenical, however, one rep said when asked if Muslims could use it for meetings said "Well, there would likely be security risks with that." Brownback has buddies in Dominionism AND Opus Dei, apparently, and was his religious connections are only rivaled by his attachment, lip to ass, to the Kochs.

We call it Brownbackistan....

[formergothardite]

this has to be a troll.

[Maggie Mae]

Women are hard-wired in a way that is incompatible with female suffrage.

:roll:

Others have written better than I can about statistical information regarding how women vote, and how we tend toward socialism. What I can do is provide a real-life anecdote to support my claim.

:roll:

I was a classroom teacher before getting a Master’s degree in speech-language pathology and working as a speech therapist in a low-income public school district.

Good for you!

The children I worked with by and large came from economically-distressed families.

Among the black students, very few had parents who had ever been married; many had little to no contact with their fathers and thus lived in poverty.

I'm not sure how this is at all relevant.

However, there was also a large number of immigrants from Mexico, because the state in which I was working produces large fruit crops over the summer months, attracting migrant workers to pick the fruit. The Mexican families often were made up of a married couple, and many, many of them, perhaps even most, were in the U.S. illegally. The politically correct term, of course, is “undocumented workers.â€

Again, why is the race of the "undocumented workers" relevant?

Because I worked in Special Education, I worked with children who were severely learning disabled, cognitively impaired, autistic, or physically disabled. The children had serious needs, which we did our best to meet; the Mexican parents tended to be loving and concerned, but very, very poor, with limited English language skills, and a great fear of being discovered and deported, so they often did not seek help for their children beyond what we provided at school.

Women were created to bond with, love, and nurture children.

Can I get a copy of that peer reviewed study please? I'm not sure that I agree that a woman's only purpose is to bond, love, and nurture children.

Yes, feminism has done much to ameliorate this tendency in women, and at times in the “manosphereâ€, it can start to seem like women have no ability to love and care for anyone but themselves, but I still believe that God created women with this natural ability to nurture children.

Oh, you BELIEVE that God created women with a natural ability to nurture. Okay, fine. Then take your "natural ability to nurture" and nurture some children.

So, it’s no surprise that those of us who worked with these children naturally became personally concerned about their welfare. The children were sweet but needy, and the parents were loving and worried…and breaking the law.

The parents were breaking the law. The parents. The children had no choice in the matter. The people hiring the parents are breaking the law. The children are innocent in this "crime." Besides, I'm sure that if we stopped hiring illegal immigrants, you would find something else to complain about. Like the cost of cherries. Or Walmart would find some other way to screw the supplier. Not that I'm advocating the conditions that Illegal immigrants work under, not at all. Do you know what the parents are going through on a daily basis? Are you aware that not every migrant worker is illegal?

We always pretty much knew without being told that they were here illegally. We knew that they should probably be reported to the authorities. Instead, we made every effort to help them “under the tableâ€, sending them to doctors whom we knew would not report them and who offered a sliding fee scale. I would seek out low-cost, no-questions-asked dental clinics for the children. We were vague on paperwork without actually lying outright. But it went beyond that. I sat in a staff meeting with an ESL teacher who actually gave a presentation on how to skirt the law with respect to illegal aliens until such a time when, according to her, these unfair laws limiting immigration would be over-turned.

I am a conservative, generally law-abiding Christian woman, yet I felt so sorry for these little ones that I would have happily voted for just about anything in order to help them. And yet, it is clear that wide-spread illegal immigration has had disastrous consequences in the United States.

You say you are law-abiding a mere sentence after you talked about possibly skirting immigration laws.

Clearly the laws need to be strengthened and enforced more rigorously, but as a woman, I am not capable of stepping back from my emotions to make a socially-responsible decision on this matter. I consider myself conservative, and most people who know me would say that I’m almost rabidly right-wing, yet I could not step back from these children and say, “It sucks, but their parents are breaking the law and should be reported.†In short, with women, what should be charity quickly turns into entitlement.

Correction. YOU are unable to step back from emotions. It's not a gender thing.

And if I, as a conservative, thinking Christian woman cannot be trusted to vote rationally, how much less so can women who are liberal, or low-IQ, or even just an average sort of woman? We vote almost entirely with our emotions in attempt to prevent anyone from ever having to suffer any consequences for their own poor choices.

It's not a gender thing. And "low-IQ"citizens are still citizens.