If your first reaction upon reading the title was “Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!” or “Frrrpppkwiliq boahh boahh boahh!” or some variant of “%&*&^%$##!”, then you have discovered the meaning of sacrilegious. Congratulations! You hold an idea that you consider beyond possibility of all discussion—just as ideologues do. But you also hold at least one thing sacred—and this is in your favor. If it’s the right thing.
…Do you know when things really started to go — literally — to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote seperate and apart from their husbands…
…Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family…
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over…
Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected…women want someone or someTHING to take care of them. For this reason, women tend to lean socialist, and are generally in favor of the expansion of government when the government promises to “provide” for them.
Well, you get the idea. The Government has stepped in and became Man for Woman. What was the name of that woman in the Obama campaign that proves this? Julia? A woman now can “have as many fatherless children as she pleases” and Government will step in and care for them and the woman. There is no requirement family does so. Thus, in a very real way, “Fathering children no longer binds a man to a woman in any way.”
Barnhardt then says “Men didn’t vote to societally castrate themselves, and never would have.” But this is false: men did allow women’s suffrage by vote (in 1919)—and they did not have to. And you would have thought, after December 1917 when both houses of Congress passed a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, the result of a movement largely led by women, that they would have seen what was coming.
Banned alcohol? Pause to recall that the United States of America banned alcohol. Via Constitutional Amendment. Banned alcohol. By rewriting its founding document. This is insanity itself. Not the first lapse into darkness, nor the last, but an extremely telling one.
What is true is after female suffrage:
Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individuals’ votes. What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried — and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government.
Our debate is merely theoretical, as all but the most ardent ideologue will understand. It is only the activist who would read these words and invoke the Slippery Slope and scream that our Democracy is imperiled.
No. As detailed many times on this blog, suffrage has only expanded, and will continue to expand, both in eligibility and in matters. We recede from the Republic and inch ever closer to a true Democracy. And no small debate on an obscure site at the far edge of the Internet will change this. So do please relax and try not to take any of this personally.