The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?
Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”
The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.
But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.
Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.
Less Than Feminine
It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.
Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.
Mental Floss writes [emphasis mine],
Another Massachusetts woman, writing in 1916, expressed concerns on the effect of the suffrage movement on women’s character. Suffragism appeared overtly aggressive to many critics. “It is surely not making them any more lovely, or pleasant in their lives. They grow bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic, liking the excitement of campaigning and finding their natural, proper duties ‘flat, stale, and unprofitable.’”
Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.
Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).
And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.
Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.
Bad For The Family
Ultimate History Project writes,
One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”
Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.
Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.
This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.
Dr. Anna Shaw, President of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association called anti-suffragists the “home, hearth and mother crowd.” Obviously, she was not interested in any of these identities. When asked why there was no marriage in heaven, Dr. Shaw brazenly responded, “Because there are no men in heaven.” Like many suffragettes, she felt that men were not necessary and women, banding together could take care of themselves and live happily ever-after in a female-dominated world and after-life.
A declining population rate is not relevant to her ideology, because feminism is all about the desires of the individual. Feminism is an ideology that glorifies selfishness. Don’t try to look attractive for the man in your life. Don’t stay at home investing in your children during their developmental years. Don’t bother learning skills to make a home run efficiently. Don’t be concerned whether your future husband is uncomfortable about the previous men in your life you’ve slept with. Don’t go out of your way to do nice things to serve your husband.
Women were the main supporters of prohibition in America. Once alcohol was outlawed, not only was social life boring, but organized crime flourished.
You can tell a lot about a society by its attitudes towards alcohol. Notice the religious groups that have a strict ban on alcohol—Mormons, Muslims, and most protestant Christians—have the most socially awkward people. They also do some of the most obnoxious moral crusading.
Women are the bulwark of the modern Democratic party. They are the ones who push so hard for our welfare state. Women are also the ones who control the education industry. They are the ones who want to ruin safe schools by bussing in ghetto kids from across town. They are the ones who pushed all that rain forest crap down our throats in the 90s.
Anarchist and radical feminist Emma Goldman wrote an essay against women’s suffrage. She refers to the suffrage movement as fetish worship, as though it’s something that’s in style but isn’t normal. Her comments on suffragettes’ fascist attitudes sound like they are written against general liberalism today.
Those who have not yet achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this omnipotent diety. Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!
This short essay is actually fairly red pill and goes beyond suffrage. I realize that women are usually bad at philosophy, but once in a while one comes a long that really makes an impression on you (I had a female philosophy professor in college who was absolutely fantastic). I’ll be frank and say that I really enjoyed this essay despite our differences in ideology and the essay’s internal contradictions. There’s several quotable passages I’ll have to skip over.
Goldman talks about how women are followers, whether in a religion or in a social ideology. She makes an interesting argument that most women who want suffrage do so so that they may become more deeply enslaved by the church and state. That sounds crazy until you think about how much today is either illegal, borderline illegal, or such strict social taboo that it might as well be illegal.
Woman’s demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.
If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.
True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.
Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?
The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor.
Goldman continues by comparing countries and states that already have suffrage to those without. She mentions Australia’s new complex labor laws that make “strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.” In fairness, she says that this is not necessarily the fault of women’s suffrage but that at least women’s suffrage was not able to help the workers despite claims that women are more compassionate.
After elaborating on a few other examples of how women’s suffrage has not made those societies better, Goldman continues on about the nature of women’s moral philosophy.
Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigoted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be…In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender: it always prohibits…Prostitution and gambling have never done a more flourishing business than since the law has been set against them. […]
I wonder if they understand that it is the very thing which, instead of elevating woman, has made her a political spy, a contemptible pry into the private affairs of people, not so much for the good of the cause, but because, as a Colorado woman said, “they like to get into houses they have never been in, and find out all they can, politically and otherwise.”…For nothing satisfies the craving of most women so much as scandal.
It’s like a prophecy. Which of anything has she said that has not come true? And it is not merely women in politics, but women in journalism in vile gossip publications like Gawker.
For clarification, in Latin and its descendent languages, the word for law is feminine in gender, which I think the line “In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender” is referring to.
We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.
Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.
The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.
The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.
But that is just food for thought. The point in all of the above is that women conventionally were not in favor of women’s rights even when offered them. Feminism did not come like the awaited messiah it’s portrayed as. Instead the feminists just bitched loud enough, took control of academia, and were encourage by sexless men.
Women always take the beliefs of those around them. Better a man who loves her to have the strongest influence over her beliefs and actions than her catty girlfriends who despise her for being more attractive.
Read More: Understanding The Seneca Falls Convention