Freepers, feminism and the vote
[Cross-posted at Big Brass Blog.]
Today’s Freeper topic, interestingly enough, is about the controversy over Susan Estrich’s tiff with Michael Kinsley over the lack of female representation on Op-Ed pages (his latest entry on this is here). Considering a good amount of the traffic to the nascent Big Brass Blog has been generated by the — let’s say — interesting exchanges between fellow bloggrrl ShakesSis and some of the Technorati Testosteroni, I thought it would be equally interesting to probe the minds of our knuckle-dragging friends out there. My, my, I feel the clock winding back for women, even as I type…have barf bags at the ready.
Actual Freeper Quotesâ„?:
“Feminists are always hysterical. It is the nature of the beast.”
“Noisy feminists are the reason that sites like these are blossoming: AmericanWomenSuck.Com”
Back 10,000+ years ago, women only had something like 10 menstrual cycles in their entire lives. This was due to menarche (the onset of having menstrual cycles) occurring over 3 years later than it does now, nursing infants more universally, being pregnant more of the time, and having much shorter life expectancies than now.
By comparison, the average Western woman has something like 400 menstrual cycles during her lifetime. That means that women are undergoing (and men are having to put up with the effects from) FORTY TIMES as much PMS as is supposed to be the case! No wonder women’s heads are screwy in many cases so much of the time (divorcing for no real reason, etc.). Makes you think that maybe the Founding Fathers were on the right track when they excluded women from the vote and elective office; I’d hate to think of a woman President during “that time” having to make a decision about nuclear weapon use…”
“Feminists lost all credibility. Gosh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize they ever had any credibility.”
“Makes you think that maybe the Founding Fathers were on the right track when they excluded women from the vote and elective office
Hold on a minute, buddy. I said feminists are stupid. I didn’t say all women are stupid. I happen to be of the female persuasion, and I would put my voting record up against some dumbass union worker any day. Not only that, this country would be a whole lot better off with me in office than Kerry, Byrd or Reid.”
“The rise in socialism in America tracks almost perfectly with women getting the franchise. Unmarried women have been proven to vote on average considerably more in favor of socialism than men do (married or not). Basically, in terms of how the country fares, it doesn’t matter much whether married women vote or not. It matters very much whether unmarried ones do (it would be best if they did not).
Two other arguments against women having the vote:
1) Each complete household traditionally got one vote during much of American history, with even men often not getting to vote if they were propertyless and/or wards of the state (on welfare). Men who headed a household voted on behalf of the whole family, so arguably everyone was represented. Women not married are arguably between lives, not fully part of society. Too, unmarried women were traditionally still living in their father’s homes for the most part, and were represented by him.
2) The right to vote historically accompanied the obligation to defend the nation as a combat soldier. Women are arguably unfit as a group for this role, whereas no nation can endure if its men shirk this role in time of need. Men as a group have this obligation (which women even now do not), so merit the vote that way. Allowing women the vote would be to give them something that they have not and never can earn.
(I believe that women only belong in the military in clerical and nonfrontline medical, but that’s another story/)”
“Intriguing information. However, if we make any changes as to who is qualified to vote, I say we initiate a voter’s test. If you pass, you get to vote. If you are stupid, you fail, and the rest of us are protected from your stupidity. Democrats would never hold office again. [Uh…If that’s the baseline, there are a whole bunch of dumbf*ck Repugs that will be disenfranchised, my friend.]
I believe that women only belong in the military in clerical and nonfrontline medical, but that’s another story.
I agree with you on this point. I also think the social and moral decline in our country directly corresponds to women leaving their families and going to work.”
“Agreed re a voter’s test. I would have it include all of the following:
1) Test of facility with spoken and written Standard English.
2) Proof of citizenship and born of citizens legally here (parents were never illegals).
3) Minimum intelligence (over an 85 at least); this would disenfranchise just over half of blacks, BTW…
4) Knowledge of American history and the Constitution.
5) No known moral turpitude, such as homosexuality, habitual drug use, advocating socialism or feminism, membership in PETA/ELF/Greenpeace or the like, membership in La Raza or the like, Muslim belief, not having divorced a spouse in a marriage with minor children without having PROVED pre-1960 legal grounds, etc.
6) Then, something like Heinlein’s suggestion comes to mind. Put in a troy ounce of gold, and have XX seconds to solve a quadratic equation. Succeed, you vote and get your gold back. Fail, you get neither. Given the above, no minimum age to vote.
Oh, and anyone voting should not have been on welfare in the past 18 months, or birthed and kept an illegitimate child.”
One thing I can give the Freepi props for — at least they don’t mind publicly stating what their private thoughts are.