Skip to content

Offend A Feminist: The Case For Repealing The 19th Amendment

03 May 2011 @ 01:01

During last year’s National Offend A Feminist Week, I made a stellar, but brief, case that the Nineteenth Amendment to The Constitution Of The United States be repealed.  This year, I have decided to provide a more detailed indictment of this hideous rip in the American Fabric that has plagued us for nearly a century.

For your edification, here is the full text of the Amendment:

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That date 18 August shall forever be a black day in the annals of American History.  Black crepe adorns my humble abode on each anniversary and there is much wailing and lamentations.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the indictment I hand down here will resonate across the whole of the Fruited Plain and a movement to remove this scar from the American backside will catch fire and burn away this failed and dastardly [man, I love that word] experiment.

Herewith, the only primer you will ever need…

In addition to arguing for the repeal of the Sixteenth [income tax imposed] and Seventeenth [Senators popularly elected] Amendments to The Constitution, I believe that the Nineteenth [guaranteeing the right of women to vote] should be overturned. Some reasons why follow in no particular order…

-The great John Derbyshire speaketh:

The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left.  They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.

In another forum he wrote as part of his reply to someone who was shocked at the chapter in his book, We Are Doomed, entitled The Case Against Female Suffrage:

The argument of the chapter is, that women favor the Left; that increasing feminization of society is therefore bad for conservatism; that such feminization is in fact happening; and that therefore We Are Doomed.

John links to this posting by the wise blogger known as The Audacious Epigone.  A few highlights:

…As John Derbyshire notes in We Are Doomed (p88-89), the sex variance in political attitudes was identified as far back as 4th century BC, in Aristophanes’ play Assemblywomen. Taking power in Athens, women vote in socialism:

Everyone is to have an equal share in everything and live on that; we won’t have one man rich while another lives in penury, one man farming hundreds of acres while another hasn’t got enough land to get buried in… No one will be motivated by need; everybody will have everything.

In Freedomnomics (p160-165), John Lott traces the relationship between female suffrage and per capita government expenditures in the US at the state level (several states ‘preempted’ the 19th amendment, Wyoming and Utah by half a century) and finds that as the percentage of women voting increased, the amount of per capita governmental spending rose as well, at faster rates than it did in states where women were prohibited from voting.

That women vote to the left of men is indisputable….

Indeed, it is, and TAE goes on to cite many enlightening statistics to prove it true [they may be found here].

It is an indisputable fact that Progressivism, what Marxism with a kinder face was deceptively named in  late 19th Century America, began it’s march of destruction through The United States in the early years of the 20th Century, but, at first, it was at a slow pace.  It is also an indisputable fact that it picked up speed after 1920, which just happens to be the year the 19th Amendment was ratified.  Coincidence?  I think not.  As women began exercising their new right to vote, they demanded more mothering from their government at all levels.  While such spending by the national government did not really take off for the stratosphere until the final months of Herbert Hoover’s term, it increased dramatically on the state, county, and local level [see: FDR, New York Governor; Smith, Al, New York Mayor; Curley, James Michael, Boston Mayor].  Thus, began our decline into a nation so horribly in debt that we face economic ruin.

-Women tend to not research the issues, instead making their decisions based on their perception of the appearance and demeanor of the candidate. While women are very good a sussing out bad characters, they tend to turn off their perceptive and useful intuition radar (1) in personal romantic situations [see: bad boys, infatuation with] and (2) when assessing candidates [see: Romney, Mitt; in Mrs. Belvedere’s case, see: Trump, Donald — and they wonder why I drink].

The Audacious Epigone again:

…Women fall for social dominance, which consists primarily of financial affluence, social prestige, good frame (physical attractiveness, deep voice, facial symmetry, etc) and occupational success–all hallmarks of successful politicians (our current President being no exception). And men don’t wilt in their twenties, occasionally remaining in full bloom into their senior years (see Silvio Berlusconi). So we have women voting for politicians in the hopes that it’ll somehow bring their personal fantasies to fruition!

While many men [including myself] find Sarah Palin quite attractive, it has no bearing on why she enjoys tremendous support from male conservatives.  I think it safe to say that many of us feel the same way about her as we did and do about Margaret Thatcher.  We may talk about some gal candidate being ‘hot’ or a ‘babe’, but such talk is just simply men noticing a pretty face or a nice pair of gams — all in good fun.

Women, however, while they may try to join in the male ogle game, often get quite dewy-eyed over candidates like Mitt, confirming that they are serious in their being swayed by the attractions TAE mentioned.  That is no way to run a railroad.  Choosing a President requires different criteria than choosing a Cabana Boy.

-Even Ann Coulter is open to my repeal idea:

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

I’m a reasonable man and, therefore, I’m willing to compromise a bit here and say it would be just fine with me if single women only were deprived of the franchise — it would be a start.  At least, with married women, we real, Alpha males could persuade them on the right choice in voting [and deny them our mojo if they disobey].  ‘What about the wussy, Nancy-Boy, Beta males, Bob?’, you say.  Easy: take away their voting privilege – they’re nothing but women in pants anyways.

-The wisdom that argued against female suffrage is ageless, as you can see by Mrs. Madeline Vinton Dahlgren’s eloquent and sensible Thoughts On Female Suffrage And In Vindication Of Women’s True Rights from 1871 here.  An excerpt:

We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duty God has imposed upon us, than they [men] have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist.

It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and husbands love us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field and the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial that it could possibly be were all women allowed to vote.

This has nothing to do with inferiority, but rather with recognizing differences and making the best use of them that will benefit Human Beings.

Also:

We hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene.

As RamzPaul comments over at The Spearhead [tip of the fedora to him for leading me to Mrs. Dahlgren’s pamphlet]:

As a contemporary of Marx, [Mrs.] Dahlgren correctly identified that the push for female suffrage was Marxist in origin. Fifty years later the Cultural Marxists implicitly agreed with Dahlgren that the best way to destroy Western Civilization (aka Christendom) was to undermine the family. And the seeds that were planted in the 19th amendment paved the way for the spawning of what would be known as feminism.

The people opposed to female suffrage proved to be right beyond their wildest predictions. As Google was celebrating the 19th amendment, a British newspaper detailed the boasting of a 26 year old woman who claims to have had sex with 5,000 different men. If Madeline Dahlgren were alive today, I am sure she would have understood the connection between female suffrage in the West and the decline of civilization.

Indeed. Though RamzPaul may be a bit strong in his wording, the core of his conclusions are correct. Since the push for equality in all things became the rallying cry [fueled by Cultural Marxism, which saw it as a vehicle through which the Chaos they desired could be created] and accepted as the normal way of things, The West has declined. To desire equality in all things is to deny reality – a very basic reality in this case: that men and women are different and, because of these, differences, each are better suited to certain things than the other. To whimsically declare this fact, this Truth, not to be so, is to believe that unicorns exist and that Human Beings can be re-engineered like electronic or mechanical devices. To believe in such magic is to believe that man is of no more value than the clock or the washing machine. Such a belief is Anti-Life. Such a denial of Reality has brought about nothing but misery.

-While I could further flesh out my reasoning here and spend many more paragraphs justifying my position [and dazzling you with my deep grasp of Right Reason], I’ve worked a long day…so, why don’t you go and pour me a nice shot of my favorite bourbon, baby, and bring me my slippers while you’re at it. Oh, and hand me the remote, like a nice girl.

12 Comments
  1. Adobe Walls permalink
    03 May 2011 @ 09:24 09:24

    Putting the paste back in tube? I think not, we just need a plan, a way to get repeal on the ballot.

  2. 03 May 2011 @ 11:30 11:30

    I’m a woman, and I’ve voted in every election since 1976, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant we would get more presidents like Ronald Reagan and not be saddled with any more Barack Øbamas.

    After the 2008 election, someone did a statistical analysis (I wish I’d saved the article) which showed that demographic shifts were responsible for Øbama’s victory. Certain demographic groups can be counted on to vote certain ways (e.g., married men with children vote Republican, single mothers vote Democrat, etc.), and their voting patterns stay remarkably consistent over the years. What has changed is the distribution of those groups. Back when Ronald Reagan was elected, we had more married people with children (who tend to vote Republican) and fewer single women with children (who vote about 99.9% Democrat). Over the years since then the numbers have shifted — marriage is down, broken homes are up, illegitimacy is up, and of course so is immigration, which has skewed the numbers to favor Democrats. If we could somehow bring back the culture of marriage and family formation, and decrease the incidence of family breakup and illegitimacy, that alone would go a long way toward solving the problem. But I don’t suppose that’s any more likely than repealing the 19th Amendment. Sigh…

    • Anonymous permalink
      16 December 2013 @ 15:57 15:57

      Hello, Bob! So, how many girls have the same name as you? I’m curious. But in all seriousness, I couldn’t tell if half of the commenters were being serious or not. It’s either serious or incredibly stupid. The same with this article, it’s illogical and not amusing. Alright, I’ll word it in simple words for a feeble mind to understand. Okay, so here we have Obama. So, everything that has negatively affected our country should be blamed on…women! You do realize that the president doesn’t have the only say? Congress (Senate/HoR)? Nah, nah…let’s just blame women. I mean, Obama is a democrat. Surely all women are democrats and should be penalized for electing “cancer” as the president. Let’s not blame any of the other masses that voted for…oh…senators, representatives, and even presidential candidates. Nah, nah, that would make sense. Oh, and instead of blaming the politicians for their own actions (how can we expect them to own up to their actions like a normal person?) let’s blame the voters *coughs* women *coughs*. You are SUCH a genius. Man, I’m sure you have a “normal”, “traditional” family to teach your GENIUS views. Boy, that’ll impact our society positively. You pass on that poppycock. There should be enough of that stupidity to go around. Right?

  3. 03 May 2011 @ 12:08 12:08

    Bob: I think that with this post you solidly accomplished your objective. BRAVO!

  4. 03 May 2011 @ 12:48 12:48

    Instead of worrying about sex, make the franchise available only tot hsoe who have served (military or other) as in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. This weeds out the dross pretty well.

  5. 03 May 2011 @ 19:03 19:03

    Linked, Bob!

  6. Aaron Worthing permalink
    04 May 2011 @ 00:00 00:00

    no, can’t get behind this even as a joke.

    But i do recall a bit years ago on The Man Show where they were getting women to sign up to “end women’s sufferage” saying things like “my mother sufferaged, my grandmother sufferaged, and this has got to end.” the joke being, obviously, that everyone thought they meant suffering, and had no idea what sufferage meant.

    you might try hunting that down on youtube. its pretty funny.

  7. bobbelvedere permalink*
    07 May 2011 @ 17:15 17:15

    bob: Of course, there’s no point in repealing the 19th if men countinue to not reject their feminization because we’ll just be trading in one kind of woman for another. I remember when this whole feminization thing got going in the Era Of Alan Alda – horrible times, indeed. Men have to step up and resume being men…and none of this Promise Keepers weepy huggy stuff either – just ‘act like a man!’, as Don Corleone once said.

    LA: Just trying to do the Lord’s work – and have a bit of fun.

    Ne0: But I don’t believe women should serve in combat or anywhere near the front lines except as nurses in MASH units [or whatever they’re called these days – can’t remember right now as I’m still recovering from being pickled in NH for a few days].

    All: For a lively Comment discussion, go to Karen’s site.

    Aaron: I recall that skit well – it was funny and depressing at the same time.

Trackbacks

  1. Offend A Feminist: Wife Spanking, Etc… « The Camp Of The Saints
  2. Offend A Feminist Revisited: Should You Spank Your Wife? « The Camp Of The Saints
  3. #NOAFW – Bob’s Greatest Hit: Should You Spank Your Wife? | The Camp Of The Saints
  4. #NOAFW Still Has Two Days Left | That Mr. G Guy's Blog

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,744 other followers

%d bloggers like this: