Women's Suffrage Under Attack
Ok. So suffrage isn't really under attack. But twice this year I've read accounts of writers who think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to deny women the right to vote. It makes me wonder if the Republican party, having just this year burned major bridges with minorities and gays, is going for the trifecta.
The first account was by some blogger in Chico, California. I wrote about it here.
Now, we have another account. British-American conservative thinker extraordinare John Derbyshire suggests that we would be a better country if women didn't vote. Apparently, he's devoted a whole chapter to the topic in his new book. But from an interview he gave on Alan Colmes' radio show, it seems to boil down to his idea that women "lean hard to the left."
So, Derbyshire thinks women shouldn't be granted the vote because they don't vote the way he wants them to. What a shining beacon of democracy this guy is. I wonder what he thinks of women in office. More importantly, I wonder if Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingram both voted for hard-left candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. Maybe it's their fault we got President Bush.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross-posted at Dagblog.
Women have the vote down there?
Holy shit. Don't tell Ma.
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a blog about this the other day.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thepeoplechoose/2009/09/iron-jawed-angels---feels-very.php
I referred to the movie Iron Jawed Angels which depicts the womens suffrage movement. Except I extended the notion of denial of rights to the entire working class. I did so because the ideas portrayed very much reflect the current circumstance we are facing. The rights of the vast majority are being hijacked by corporate America with the full cooperation of congress. No doubt about it.
October 1, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that point of this blog is ... what?
There are people who still believe the earth is flat.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. It shows you every single micro-deviation from what you believe is a common sense viewpoint.
And seems to legitimize each deviation by it's very existence.
FNC does this all the time. Have 1000 people of one opinion. Then have the sole person with the contrary opinion of the first group of 1000. Now pick one of the 1000 to "debate" the single dissenting opinion. This was actually documented in OUTFOXED.
Fair and balanced, right? Seems like there are two sides, right?
Alan Colmes is employed by Fox News.
Why do they do this? Provides watercooler talk. "What will they think of next to report on Fox... I must listen!"
Seems to have worked. We now have a blog about it. Another score for Rupert and Derbyshire.
October 1, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you were to peruse Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, one of its tenets is to reverse suffrage. The idea being that women vote with their emotions, not their heads... thus leading to the decadence of the 60s.
What is amazing about this blog is that this concept is bubbling to the surface again. It did a few years ago when Coulter ran the cocktain circuit spouting this Stepford nonsense.
October 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Phyllis Schlafly. Gotta respect a woman who has the nerve to make gobs money suggesting that women shouldn't make any money.
October 1, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, brother.
So, it would be better if women didn't vote. Hmmm. Well, a good portion of them don't. A good portion of men don't vote either. Voter turnout in the U.S. is miserable. So......where's the beef?
This Derbyshire guy is an idiot. And the onevike guy needs his ass kicked by a grrrl. Where's my muck boots? I'll do it.
;o)
October 1, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Flower! Got any hobnails? Think I might have some buried somewhere - I never get rid of things like that. (Yes, I do have clothes and shoes that I have owned and worn for 30 years)
October 1, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done, O. This sort of rank stupidity needs to be called out wherever it surfaces. As does the rank stupidity of those who complain about the calling-out. (See a certain misappropriated symbol above for a good example.)
October 1, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to buck the trend here, but I happen to agree. We women tend to vote with our uteruses (uteri?) and look where it has gotten this nation! The other grand experiment was allowing women into elected office, and for Chrissake, onto the Supreme Court. Don't you think that if that had been a good idea, there would have been more than 3, count 'em, THREE women qualified to be on that supremely august body? And why are women only 17% of Congresspeople? Yep, again, there aren't enough qualified women. And besides, did you notice at Obama's speech recently to the joint session: they all wore red suits. Blech!
Why do you suppose this nation never passed the Equal Rights Amendment? Yep; you got it: even most women wouldn't vote for it; and yuou know why that was...
I say: Rescind women's right to vote; we need to be considered as Property again. Things would run a lot more smoothly.
October 1, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Admiring your snark, Wendy, but still gasping for breath. :-)
Must find blood pressure med...
October 1, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure, darlin'!
(she musta' woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, eh?)
October 1, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you found your meds,
http://nickelkid.net/quotes/derby.html
October 1, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, JNH, I did locate meds, and not a minute too soon, given your link. Thanks for the advance warning. You're a good person.
October 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahahaaaaa
Good one, WendyD.
October 1, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to oblige, Flower.
"We are not Women; We Are Devo!"
October 1, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do worry that we may be nearing the end of a golden age of rights for the non-elite, and some loss of rights for women and those that don't own property would be an early indicator.
October 1, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno O. A lot of jokes to made here. But this is not funny at all when taken in context.
I could quote rush here, but there are many besides him that are actually proclaiming that a WOMAN'S PLACE IS IN THE HOME. I mean a woman's place is in the home while daddy works for seven bucks an hour at Walmart.
No, when we hear things like this we must STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.
For sure.
Good post. Good example of standing up and being counted!!!! Good for you.
October 1, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
O: I note that this subject is either so laden with fraught meaning that one is afraid to speak frankly....or, it is so easily dismissed, because....?...... that no one is really addressing it.
That ANYONE would dare speak in these terms, in 2009, is GROTESQUE. How many steps is it, actually, from the opinions of M. Derbyshire to... let's say, those of the TALIBAN? First, we revoke the vote. Then, having revoked the vote, we rewrite property law; then, having revoked property law, we treat women as property which, may be, because we "own it," may be treated respectfully or, may be treated with disdain, or even animus. We may choose to ignore, discard or even stone to death this creature, this object who annoys.
Sorry. My diatribe not helpful.
What would be helpful in this surreal circumstance?
October 1, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is surreal. I don't doubt that there are people who believe this stuff. To me, the fact that somebody can make a book and go on the talk show circuit to promote whack-a-doodle ideas points more to the state of our dysfunctional media industry and less to any sort of doomsday Handmaid's Tale sort of uprising. I'm not worried that I'll be disenfranchised. Just annoyed that I have to see this crap at Borders.
October 1, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Easy to eschew Borders now, as -- at least here -- stale bagels and bad lighting.(Cannot avoid sarcasm, as only defense.) Hope your take is correct. But -- "personhood" for corporations in the residual Bush Supreme Court? Scary.
October 1, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Orlando, I'm sorry all I had was comedy to offer; my snark wasn't aimed at you for offering this, but for the authors who were seriously advocating it. I have long been afraid of the attempts to turn our nation into a theocracy, though more for the past eight years than now. There could be events that precipitate a Shock Doctrine-ish response in that regard.
Women will be in the job market for a long time, though; economic trends are forcing many who have never worked, to work. For minimum wages.
October 1, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink