Fascinating piece. Many of the arguments from the anti-suffragettes as to the negative outcomes universal suffrage would bring for women are hard to refute. The trade offs have been huge, played out over decades. Much gained, much lost.
“More talk and less thought is expended on the subject of sex today than on almost anything else.”
That quote by itself is gold. If only the lady could see just how much more thoughtless talk was coming.
Of the arguments against women voting, this has to be among the best I’ve seen. Politics is more than voting, and it’s more than political parties. It’s possible to communicate an agenda, and do so more effectively, if one remains above the fray of partisanship and organizes behind a specific issue. Had this been maintained in the 20th century, abortion wouldn’t be legalized, household incomes would’ve stayed high, and policies for the family would’ve been much better.
Frankly, I’m a little jealous that I couldn’t do this as a man. But as you say, there are relationships to power that differ. Men are working and can be conscripted, which makes voting and party politics more appropriate than the organizing, lobbying, and child-rearing of women.
I think, as you suggest, the solution must be found from people voluntarily leaving this dichotomy and exploring the dimensions of soft and hard power. We really don’t know what’s possible because everything has been so simplified and commoditized. It’s always possible to do something different than what the box tells you.
Boy am I glad I subscribed. This article is a banger.
But in a world of “betray-betray,” how does it become possible to work back towards the dynamic of mutual trust? (À la @Copernican) I suppose part of the answer means trusting those who demonstrate themselves worthy of negotiation. Which then comes back to David Greene’s question to filter out the unserious from those who are ready to escape the cycle.
The universal franchise in total has been a disaster for western civilisations. It has given power to those can manipulate over those that can create.
It has allowed the manipulation of society to serve the financial over the spiritual. By applying power to the indelent, the envious and the down right manovelent. Every base needs is pandered to . Be it Greed,envy or lustful . In order that the mass becomes distracted from the plunder of the productive in the nation.
Add to this the distractions of the party political puppet shows in the west. That through the ability to vote for everyone and anything. They are duped into inaction.
The mass believes that entering into a darken cubicle and consenting with a X . A derisive signature in effect. They have taken action to halt the downwards spiral of their nation. When in effect nothing since the end of WW2 has changed about the liberalist global agendas.
As your essay showed women had far more influence on how the unfranchished had on the culture and this the nation. They were forced to take up unaligned activism in order to effect change. The same could be said of men before the universal male franchise in Britain also.
In my view the time for the real of the universal franchise is now. Only those who actually contribute must have a say in the election to government. Those who pay taxes . Those who serve in the military. limited to one vote per tax paying household. And on no account should any immigrants to any country be allowed to vote for as in ancient law , for seven generations hence.
Fascinating piece. Many of the arguments from the anti-suffragettes as to the negative outcomes universal suffrage would bring for women are hard to refute. The trade offs have been huge, played out over decades. Much gained, much lost.
“More talk and less thought is expended on the subject of sex today than on almost anything else.”
That quote by itself is gold. If only the lady could see just how much more thoughtless talk was coming.
Of the arguments against women voting, this has to be among the best I’ve seen. Politics is more than voting, and it’s more than political parties. It’s possible to communicate an agenda, and do so more effectively, if one remains above the fray of partisanship and organizes behind a specific issue. Had this been maintained in the 20th century, abortion wouldn’t be legalized, household incomes would’ve stayed high, and policies for the family would’ve been much better.
Frankly, I’m a little jealous that I couldn’t do this as a man. But as you say, there are relationships to power that differ. Men are working and can be conscripted, which makes voting and party politics more appropriate than the organizing, lobbying, and child-rearing of women.
I think, as you suggest, the solution must be found from people voluntarily leaving this dichotomy and exploring the dimensions of soft and hard power. We really don’t know what’s possible because everything has been so simplified and commoditized. It’s always possible to do something different than what the box tells you.
Boy am I glad I subscribed. This article is a banger.
But in a world of “betray-betray,” how does it become possible to work back towards the dynamic of mutual trust? (À la @Copernican) I suppose part of the answer means trusting those who demonstrate themselves worthy of negotiation. Which then comes back to David Greene’s question to filter out the unserious from those who are ready to escape the cycle.
The universal franchise in total has been a disaster for western civilisations. It has given power to those can manipulate over those that can create.
It has allowed the manipulation of society to serve the financial over the spiritual. By applying power to the indelent, the envious and the down right manovelent. Every base needs is pandered to . Be it Greed,envy or lustful . In order that the mass becomes distracted from the plunder of the productive in the nation.
Add to this the distractions of the party political puppet shows in the west. That through the ability to vote for everyone and anything. They are duped into inaction.
The mass believes that entering into a darken cubicle and consenting with a X . A derisive signature in effect. They have taken action to halt the downwards spiral of their nation. When in effect nothing since the end of WW2 has changed about the liberalist global agendas.
As your essay showed women had far more influence on how the unfranchished had on the culture and this the nation. They were forced to take up unaligned activism in order to effect change. The same could be said of men before the universal male franchise in Britain also.
In my view the time for the real of the universal franchise is now. Only those who actually contribute must have a say in the election to government. Those who pay taxes . Those who serve in the military. limited to one vote per tax paying household. And on no account should any immigrants to any country be allowed to vote for as in ancient law , for seven generations hence.