Pol Opposes Women's Suffrage

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2001/sep/28/092806644.html ^ | September 28, 2001

[Bella_Bru]

She's at home right? She's not out working is she? She's practicing as she preaches, right? She doesn't vote does she? Until she starts walking the road she talks about, she can stuff it.

[gumbo]

Well, in her defense, it does seem she's a grandmother. I guess we could infer that her children are grown up and no longer need her at home.

That's how Margaret Thatcher did it.

[Bella_Bru]

Good...I guess we can assume that. I also guess she'd be willing to step dpwnm if they took away all the votes from women she got, if that's what got her elected. But then, she wouldn't have a soapbox, would she?

Look, if you want to tell me I can't vote next election, fine. But I also will stop paying taxes and obeying any laws that I don't get a say in.

How about we change it to only TAXPAYERS can vote?

[Bella_Bru]

Ooops...that's "down", not whatever I typed. My fingers hurt.

[gumbo]

Well, I didn't take her comments to mean she intended to launch a drive to repeal the 19th amendment.

Seems more like she's decrying the effects of it.

And there does seem to be a strong correlation between women's votes and, oh, say, pro-gun control, high-taxing pols getting elected.

[Bella_Bru]

Now, you really wouldn't want the lovely ladies of FR not to vote, would you?

[gumbo]

And, I should add, a strong correlation of women's votes with sleazy lying skirt-chasing treasonous politicians getting elected.

[gumbo]

Now, you really wouldn't want the lovely ladies of FR not to vote, would you?

FReeper women are sadly a small minority of American women.

And no, I'm not advocating a repeal of the 19th Amendment (though the thought is tempting).

[Storm Orphan]

I recall another group that doesn't want women to vote. Or own property. Or show their face without a veil...

[ForbesFan]

Yeah, I thought this was something Sheila Jackson Lee said, since she's opposed to women suffering. ;-)

[gumbo]

A foolish comparison. Women in America were never treated the way they are by the Taliban, even before women's suffrage succeeded.

[gumbo]

Gotta go. Way past bedtime for a "family values" person like me. G'night all.

[Bella_Bru]

Oh, I'm already on several FReepers shit lists because I have dared to say that I don't have any kids, or want them soon, I like sex, I make more $$ than the hubby (hey, I got a sweeter TA job), and I have every intention of working.

But, you know what my response to them is.

[Storm Orphan]

No more foolish than the proposal women be disenfranchised.

[Storm Orphan]

Mrs. Storm Orphan and I have no interest in kids - ever - but she loves the practice too.

And she is a crack shot, votes libertarian and thinks more logically than most reactionary chauvinists
round these parts.

The horror, the horror.

[Bella_Bru]

Take her shoes! Take her shoes!

[Storm Orphan]

No no. The heels we leave on. Everything else goes.

[d4now]

What about unwed fathers?

Seems to me that when that statement carries the social and emotional weight of unwed mothers something might begin to change.

Also seems to me that when fathers who abandon their children (deadbeat dads) effects us all the same as mothers who abandon their children then perhaps our idea of responsibility - as a society -will change.

Also seems to me that boys have as much a responsibility in the decision to make a baby as the girls. Doesn't seem likely the girls are doing this by themselves and to assign the girls the sole responsibility of choosing boys who will stick around smacks of something I hesitate to mention on this particular thread.

[Arthur McGowan]

My proposal is asymmetrical with regard to the sexes because the motives and behavior of the sexes are asymmetrical.

Boys want sex and power--they revel is "fooling" the girl; girls want babies and security. Boys don't get pregnant; girls do. Boys declare themselves non-fathers and walk away; girls, to declare themselves non-mothers, have to kill their babies.

Thus, the "unwed father" is not simply the male version of the same package of motives as an "unwed mother." Public policy that assumes that is doomed to failure.

(Before I get flamed: By "girl" and "boy" I mean, of course, the promiscuous, infantile boys and girls produced in government schools, not normal young people produced by truly human societies.)

[gumbo]

[Good morning.]

No more foolish than the proposal women be disenfranchised

Well, first, there IS NO "proposal women be disenfranchised." You might want to read the article. First sentence says...

A female state senator says if women's suffrage were being voted on today she would not support it, because the 19th Amendment was the start of a decades-long erosion of family values.

Second, it's ABSURD to lump in pre-suffrage America with the Taliban. C'mon!