My outrager just broke: Campaign to repeal 19th Amendment.

[politicat]

I'm speechless.

I feel like I'm living in "Gibbon's Decline and Fall" (an excellent piece of feminist fiction, by the way).

http://fathers.ourfamily.com/19th.htm

Lots of links at site.

There is a post about this in GD, and I'm posting the original link here because I think we all need to know what we're up against.

(There is no controversy in the GD article; most people sound as stunned as I am.)

On edit: appears that author has terrible HTML skills. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

[Katherine Brengle]

1. I didn't check the link--

when I saw this in GD, I just assumed it was some sort of farce--not the case?

I guess I'll have to check it out for inclusion in my end of the month Women's History Month tribute...

[politicat]

2. The author seems serious.

And having met some of the founders of the Promise Keepers (my hometown... Yes, we're sorry), I know this is a goal of the more conservative Dominionists.

Womens' suffrage and reproductive rights, marital rights, divorce law, property law, child custody, childrens' welfare benefits - the Dominionists think these all go together. One of the reasons they fight so hard to keep gay marriage from happening is because they have agenda items to ensure as well that divorces become more difficult to obtain and prevent marriages that aren't "fruitful". Benefits for children, women's access to custody, equal division of property and rights to survivorship also allow women to be less dependent upon men in the cases of abandonment, divorce or death. Dominionism has as a core tenet that women should be subservient to men, and widows are just as dangerous as divorceés. (Anyone who has read Regency or Victorian literature knows that one of the archetypes is the wealthy widow who uses her money and single position to stand on her own and help other women to better economic positions, though usually though marriage.)

In 1906, children of divorcing parents usually went with the father, and the mother was effectively exiled from the family. Her ability to remarry successfully was impaired, thus ensuring that her punishment for resisting her marriage vows was complete. His ability to remarry was unhindered, of course. After widowhood, women of means usually were allowed to manage the estate if the children of the marriage were minors, but even as late as the 1930s, the adult sons of the deceased were allowed to evict widows from the marital home in many states. Widows without significant means often had to remarry or abandon their children to orphanages and more secure relatives. Occasionally, a woman had to abandon her children in order to remarry; the new husband didn't want to support the offspring of a previous union. Without access to work that would support themselves, much less their children, widows were forced to make horrible decisions.

As it happens, I think the premise is wrong - I don't think suffrage had anything to do with economic assistance for the poor and disabled. I think it was the Depression and the fact that people actually saw other people starve to death and freeze to death because there was no work. Three generations of voters saw that and remembered it. I don't believe there has been anything that visceral since those voters who were small children during the Depression came to voting age. The real changes in economic policy start in the late 40s and continue through the late 70s. Those voters, with birth dates effectively starting in the 1890s, lived in a world where people died of hunger and it was visible. Those voters started dying off in the late 60s for the most part, and were a minority of voters by 1984. Their numbers continue to dwindle, while the numbers of voters who have never seen real poverty first hand started rising in the late 60s, as the baby boomers started voting, and haven't dropped since.

[bloom]

3. This is so amazingly nuts

Although I did notice some guy recently in GD trying to argue that our society is a "matriarchy" because of rich widows. :rofl:


It seems that Ann Coulter has also argued that women shouldn't vote. Perhaps she would like to get married and be dependant, lose her voting rights and not voice her views? :shrug: Or maybe she'll just wait until she helps all women lose their rights? :eyes: Here it is:

On a few occasions Coulter has suggested that the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed. In a 14 February 2000 National Review Online article she wrote, "If this ticket doesn't close the gender gap, it's time to repeal the 19th Amendment." On 26 February 2001, she said, "(women should) all have to give up their vote" (Politically Incorrect). She also argues that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected - as historical voting patterns had shown men had voted in majorities for Republican candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

Oh - so part of the "reasoning" of the OP petition is:

"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you", Genesis 3:16

I guess that just goes to show you that women's rights and the Judeo-Christian "tradition" are not compatible.

[politicat]

5. But... the problem is that Jewish tradition is fairly feminist.

Talmudic law strongly favors women; they have (albeit not perfect) rights of divorce, of alimony, of marital satisfaction and of self-determination. Compared to fundamentalist Christianity, Orthodox Judaism is a feminist paradise.

As for Ann Coulter, she a) craves attention and will say or do anything to get that attention; b) she has some serious self-hatred going on between the emaciation and the identification with a group that does not protect or care for her. Or she could just be a greedy, unthinking sociopath without a shred of empathy...

I don't think therapy would help her now, but it might have, once upon a time. I think she is an Aunt archetype, to steal a frame of reference from the Handmaid's Tale. She will cooperate and support the regime that oppresses her to maximize her power and chances for survival. I think the other term is Vichy.

[Warpy]

4. Some males are two bit tyrants

and hope that oppressing women will prevent everybody from seeing their latent homosexuality, because let's face it, that's what they're hiding.

It's our job to stop them any way we can.

[bliss_eternal]

6. I can't find the article in GD...

what's the subject line...?

[lukasahero]

7. "attempt to repeal the 19th amendment (women's suffrage)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=711840&mesg_id=711840

FTR, this web page is from 1999.

[bliss_eternal]

8. Thank you, lukashero--

I appreciate it. Apparently my eyes weren't working well this morning. I must have gone through GD three times looking for it. (sigh)...better get start eating more carrots. (lol)

[lukasahero]

9. No problem

I've been following it all day (oh and I have about 50 posts on hide because of the damn press conference today - it's easier to find without them). :hi:

[bliss_eternal]

10. ...(whew)--that's a relief!

I thought I was going blind. LOL! LOL! :hi:

[ismnotwasm]

11. Blech

That is some stupid ass shit.
And what is annoying, is I can't dismiss it out of hand, because there are people who really believe in this crap, and are working at it as a goal.

[jukes]

12. i HOPE

XIAN women heed the call y stop voting...