End Women’s Suffrage Now!

[Bono]

www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sapienza4.html

End Women’s Suffrage Now!

by Jeremy Sapienza

I’m probably going to go down into the man-hating hall of fame with this next piece, but here goes: women should not have the right to vote. From the minimal American history I was taught in public school, I remember that women’s suffrage began in 1920. Then the Depression in 1929. Then the New Deal in the thirties. Then a huge war that killed millions. Then a nuclear-tinged cold war. And so on.

Of course I don’t believe that women’s voting caused all these horrible things, as the saying translated from Latin says, "Coincidence does not imply causation." But I’m just carrying the same string of thought as the lefty press when they evoke the coincidence that the economy has grown enormously under the Clinton regime, and they use it to imply causation. Anyone who is familiar with basic economics could deduce that our economic and technological progress has been made in spite of crippling Clintonian taxes and regulations, and arguably would have been tenfold if the latter had not existed.

Now that Clinton is in the picture, that reminds me of something I heard years ago, in my father’s auto repair shop. A woman customer was talking to another about how she thought the Governor from Arkansas was "cute." The other woman agreed, and said that she would vote for him because she liked his smile. This thoroughly pissed my dad off, and this was not appropriate talk for his office, where an 8-by-10 portrait of Ronald Reagan blessed the room. My father went on a tirade about how women shouldn’t be able to vote.

I was just a kid, so I didn’t think anything of it, and I had been trained by my left-liberal mother to regard with suspicion any political (or any, actually) comment my father made, since he was and is a die-hard Republican. I was reared by my mom (my parents have been divorced since I was five) to believe that bureaucrats must be trusted to run every aspect of our lives.

I believed it, too, for a long time. I was becoming the perfect Democrat.

Then I began skipping school, and my thinking changed almost instantly, the second I came in contact with the realities of life. I now concur with my father with regard to most things political, except for the fact that he loves American Imperialism and is a lot softer on welfare issues than I am. Now both my parents actually agree on something: that I’m an anarchist freak.

But they’re wrong. I’m not a freak.

However, I did hear something that freaked me out. It made me laugh uncontrollably, too, but that was an unexpected side effect. My friend was watching the Man Show on Comedy Central. By the telling title, it wins the "Most Misogynistic Show On Television" award. I can’t stand the hosts, but they were redeemed forever for their antics that day. According to my buddy, they set up a booth on a city street, with the banner "END WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE NOW!" and were trying to get people to sign their (lamentably) phony petition. Hordes of women signed the petition! They lined up, voicing their agreement with the "activists." Finally, a woman came to the booth and started yelling to the other bright women that "suffrage was voting." It is absolutely incredible that this huge group of morons actually vote for people who will enact laws to run my life!

I personally think that if all men were permitted to vote, and all women were excluded, we wouldn’t be in any better shape. There are a lot of idiots in this country, and defending their right to vote for legislation that affects and even damages American quality of life is not the best thing we can do for ourselves. I am just very much opposed to the feminist demand that women’s suffrage is a fundamental right that must be accepted as given. That everyone must be allowed to vote simply because they exist is ridiculous. Voting for representation in, say, a condominium association is vastly different from voting for representation in the legalized looting-spree that is popularly called politics. A person does not become knowledgeable and mature politically simply by virtue of turning eighteen. In fact, I believe that the left-leaning Establishment (which as far as I’m concerned includes most Republicans) wants young, inexperienced, and especially impressionable kids to vote for people who represent things that they don’t fully understand, if at all. If the masses of politically and economically braindead high school and college students can be philosophically shoved this way and that by whoever is presently controlling the public schools, then they will want as many "sheeple" to vote as possible, thus the impetus for their lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18.

All the controversy about voting aside, I think the very concept of a mere majority, learned or not, controlling the lives of all inhabitants within a geographical boundary is sickening. Etienne de la Boetie would rather have been ruled by one tyrant than one million tyrants; I share his views, 450 years later. One king can be toppled easily, and with much public support, but the modern orgy of democracy is lulling the people of this planet into a new era of serfdom.

As much as it is politically incorrect to say so, women do have an irreplaceable role in the family. Women’s "Liberation" has really liberated morals and values from family life and society. The very "progressive" programs that most women vote for are the ones forcing them to work all hours to pay the huge tax burden required to sustain these programs.

So when I am asked whether I think women should vote, I must say no. But the logical extension of my thinking is that no one should have the right to vote away the rights of others. Property is not safe when any common deadbeat can vote it out from under the owner. If we must have a country run by suffrage, it should be limited to property owners. At least they wouldn’t undermine the principles that made this country great to begin with.

Just a quick post script to save face. I love my parents despite the fact that they’re both statist freaks.

[Gabu]

But they’re wrong. I’m not a freak.

No, sorry, you are.

[ilikeverin]

ROFFLES WOMEN SHOULD BE BAREFOOT PREGNANT IN TEH KITCHEN!!!!!1!!!1111~~`1~1~!!!!

[dazzleman]

I have a female friend who likes to joke that all our problems started when women got the right to vote.  Of course, she doesn't mean it, and votes in every election.  But it does sound pretty funny coming from a woman.

[Citizen James]

So, in short, you hate America and democracy.

Or at least believe in an olgiarchy - where only the wealthy have rights, and those not born into the aristocracy are little more than slaves at the mercy (or lack thereof) of the ownership class.

Like the trotskyites/neocons you have 'evolved?' from a far left authoritarian to a far right authoritarian.

I hate to break it to you (ok, I lie. I take pleasure in informing you) but the well to do aren't nessisarily any brighter or more sensible than those in poverty or the middle class.   I've met plenty of people from many levels of society who have their own strange pet theories which make no sense.  Neither stupidity nor sense are class based.

[Gabu]

I have a female friend who likes to joke that all our problems started when women got the right to vote.  Of course, she doesn't mean it, and votes in every election.  But it does sound pretty funny coming from a woman.

Women weren't able to vote during the era of slavery and during the Civil War; it's clear that both occurred only because women couldn't vote.

[dazzleman]

I have a female friend who likes to joke that all our problems started when women got the right to vote.  Of course, she doesn't mean it, and votes in every election.  But it does sound pretty funny coming from a woman.

Women weren't able to vote during the era of slavery and during the Civil War; it's clear that both occurred only because women couldn't vote.

Or maybe it was because they had started letting people who didn't own 100 acres of land vote....

[A18]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

[MaC]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

democracy is overrated. 

[Gabu]

Good Citizen, If you are so smart, why aren't you rich ?

Because he's smart enough to realize that pursuing vast excesses of material goods is pointless since we lose it all when we die?

Albert Einstein was never particularly rich, at least not on the scale of seven-figure incomes.

[opebo]

They did cause Prohibition, and have probably made enforcement of sexual controls tighter, such as anti-prostitution laws.

[Frodo]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

[John Dibble]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

Frodo, does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?

[Frodo]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

Frodo, does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?

Yes, but with Philip you never know.... 

This is the same poster who, I believe, advocated that only those who own property (in acreage) should be allowed to vote.  Everyone seemed to have taken him seriously then (as I recall).  Why not now?  Why not take him at his word?  He's seventeen years old, and still in the throes of his extreme phase which is not unusual for someone still in his teens. 

Hopefully the older he gets and the closer he gets to twenty, he might start mellowing out and become a little more reasonable and a little less arrogant.     

[John Dibble]

I agree with ending women's suffrage, but I would also look into ending men's suffrage.

Don't you ever accuse me again of 'extremism'.

Frodo, does the word 'sarcasm' mean anything to you?

Yes, but with Philip you never know.... 

This is the same poster who, I believe, advocated that only those who own property (in acreage) should be allowed to vote.  Everyone seemed to have taken him seriously then (as I recall).  Why not now?  Why not take him at his word?  He's seventeen years old, and still in the throes of his extreme phase which is not unusual for someone still in his teens. 

Hopefully the older he gets and the closer he gets to twenty, he might start mellowing out and become a little more reasonable and a little less arrogant.     

Well, IIRC he wanted states to have two legislatures, one of which would require you to own 1/5 acre of land or something like that to vote for a representative in it. I didn't quite agree with the method, but I do understand the point that he was trying to address with the idea - heavily populated cities have more influence in states with legislatures based only on population, so the cities could essentially force rural areas many miles away to deal with whatever policies they want whether they like it or not. It's kind of the reason why every state has exactly two senators - so the big, heavily populated states have less of an ability to force the small states into doing something. It is a legitimate problem, though his solution isn't the best one. At the state level, I'd suggest doing the same thing as the feds do with states, except having the state senate done by county.

[Citizen James]

Of course, those out there who dislike our democratic ideals are free to choose to not vote and leave the decision making to those of us who care deeply about our great nation.

If you don't like the idea of a government chosen by the people - don't vote.  If you want conformity and absolute loyalty to the government - there are plenty of dictatorships which will be glad to take you in and give you the abuse you seem to desire.

[Bono]

If you want conformity and absolute loyalty to the government - there are plenty of dictatorships which will be glad to take you in and give you the abuse you seem to desire.

Strawman.

[??????????]

If you want conformity and absolute loyalty to the government - there are plenty of dictatorships which will be glad to take you in and give you the abuse you seem to desire.

Strawman.

Yep, that and dishonesty are the two biggest things he's about.

[John Dibble]

Of course, those out there who dislike our democratic ideals are free to choose to not vote and leave the decision making to those of us who care deeply about our great nation.

If you don't like the idea of a government chosen by the people - don't vote.  If you want conformity and absolute loyalty to the government - there are plenty of dictatorships which will be glad to take you in and give you the abuse you seem to desire.

James, Bono is right that this is a strawman. It really shows that you don't understand what's being said here. To sum it up, I think Winston Churchill said it best:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried."

Let's face it, government sucks. It's necessary, but it sucks. Democracy only makes it suck less - sometimes. It depends on who's voting. And I'm dead serious about that. If idiots are the majority, and they all vote, you'll get a democratic government, but it will be run by idiots. We'd all be better off if idiots didn't vote, but sometimes they do and it sucks for the rest of us. There's no helping it, it comes with the territory.

When people vote for a candidate based on stupid reasons, like the example of some women voting for a candidate because he's physically attractive, you get problems. And let's face it, many people will vote for a candidate for stupid reasons. If every person who voted was highly informed on the issues and had a sound, reasonable mind, then democracy would be absolutely great, but the fact is it's not gonna happen in our lifetime.

Personally, I'd rather be ruled by a council of unelected wise men and women who are highly principled and uncorruptable than live in a democracy. But seeing as there's pretty much no way to create such a council, I'll begrudgingly take a democracy with restrictions on the power of the majority. The founders of this nation realized the problems with democracy, and wisely put restrictions on what the majority could do(for instance, it takes more than 51% to amend the constitution). Democracy does have it's advantages over other governments, but to ignore the problems it has is foolish.