I think originally, the idea behind the man voting wasn’t intended to exclude or disenfranchise women (or children for that matter), it was thought of as one vote per household, which was presumed to be in agreement.
The man represented his family in casting the vote. I can see why women would want to have their own vote - but I don’t think it was generally the intention to exclude them in the first place. Absent the issue of abortion, I imagine most men and women would be politically aligned - since they likely share economic circumstance and would suffer or benefit the same way from policy platforms..
I imagine in those days it would have even seemed a bit silly and redundant for both husband and wife to vote.
At my church we still have this rule that women can’t join the clergy and some women resent that and are trying to change it. I just laugh because although I’m a male, the idea of being a minister does not appeal to me AT ALL.
So, a women wanting to join the clergy seems akin to my wife insisting on taking the trash cans down to the road. I thought taking the trash down and joining the clergy were unpleasant chores men do - but if my wife wants to - she is welcome to take the trash down AND become a minister.
There’s not much chance I’ll ever come to church and listen to her preach though, because I don’t go listen to the men preach either except weddings and funerals when I have to I choice.
I know, voting is a bit different - especially when there are issues that affect women differently - but I think it’s mostly another way for Marxists to create social divisions which they can exploit.
Not sure how I feel about women being ordained . . . . . .
When it comes to voting rights, per our country, it was based upon property ownership prior to suffrage.
Considering where things stand in the USA nowadays, that same criteria would exclude a significant percentage of men as well.
My main anxiety pertaining to the outcome of the 2024 GE is the fact that so far every ballot measure on the first 8 states to vote on protecting abortion rights has PASSED.
In an ideal world, the overturning of Roe v Wade should have been seen as a victory for the unborn and the sanctity of human life.
With the results on these subsequent voter, I view the SCOTUS decision as a Pyrrhic achievement, especially for the GOP’s chances to win at the polls going forward.
Finally, I harbor a deep moral objection to the way the ruling sent abortion rights (back) to the states because I believe it violates the equal protection provision(s) established in the 14th Amendment.
Specifically, I live in Maryland where an unborn child has ZERO protection from being aborted WHILE another unborn baby say in Alabama stands a much greater chance at survival, being born.
I guess I’ve gone a bit afield in this post, just wanted to express my feelings on what’s weighing on my mind.