Thursday, March 4, 2010

The Anti-Suffragists Knew Exactly What Would Happen...


One of the first red pills I had initial resistance to swallowing as I was going through my initial eye-opening phase of attaining insight into the reality of our BraveNewWorldOrder, was the idea that Woman's Suffrage was a bad thing.

I think I first encountered the anti-suffragist point of view reading Vox Day, back when I was an elephant kool aid drunkard around 2002 or so. I was literally shocked when I first read VD's reasons for opposing suffrage. I couldn't believe anyone thought like that. Little did I know back then just how deep down that rabbit hole I would eventually go....

Of course, when you are firmly plugged into our mainstream media matrix and sufficiently re-educated and dumbed down by public schooling indoctrination camps, you simply "know" that "Brave Suffragists fought heroically in the early 20th century to secure the right to vote for women!" THE RIGHT TO VOTE, we are told, is one of the highest duties; a responsibility and an exercise in civic responsibility...doing an act that supposedly made this country great.

As we know, the winners of the war always write the history in their favor...and the suffragists certainly won this war.

The funny thing is that up until recently, I had always assumed that the suffragist activists that pushed to get the 19th amendment passed had pulled a fast one over an unsuspecting country. Thanks to my recent discovery of an excellent blog, Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt, I found the evidence that the anti-suffragist movement knew exactly who the suffragists were and what they were trying to accomplish. Indeed, everything they predicted has come to pass.

The author of Full of Grace, "Laura" has a series of posts that were the result of her research of old newspaper micro-fiche files available online. You will find it well worth your time to specifically read all of her posts labeled with the following icon:

Well done Laura!

One of the items of interest she posted was a flyer printed up by the anti-suffragists opposed to the "Susan B. Anthony" amendment to the constitution. Have a look at the arguments they put forth:

The more a politician allows himself to be henpecked, the more henpecking we will have in politics.

American pep which was the result of a masculine dominated country will soon be a thing of the past. With the collapse of male ascendancy in this country we can look forward to a nation of degeneration. The suppression of sex will ultimately have its harvest in decadence, a phenomenon already beginning. The effect of the social revolution on American character will be to make "sissies" of American men--a process already well under way". --Dr. William J. Hickson, Chicago University.


WOMAN SUFFRAGE denature both men and women; it masculinizes women and feminizes men. The history of ancient civilization has proven that a weakening of the man power of nations has been but a pre-runner of decadence in civilization.

They were not merely trying to scare up opposition to the suffragists, touting some mythical, worst case scenario that might have come to pass. No, these were people who understood their history and the way that gender roles and the social norms of a culture that support them will either build up or tear down "civilization."

As Laura wrote in her post, Henpecked America: Organized Female Nagging Forever -

"What else is there to say? I think this and the other articles make it very clear the purpose of feminism. Back in the day those who believed it would destroy men and the family were probably seen as crazy. But, here we are now living the the proof."

Not just back in those days, my dear. If you were to tell a typical, modern day American woman (or man for that matter) that the suffrage movement was a disguised, subversive attack on the family and deliberately employed to break up families and foster discord between men and women, so that politicians would than be able to grab power by playing off of women's fears and basic instinctual desire to prefer security over freedom, she would look at you like you're an escapee from the loony bin.

I love the cartoon at the top of this anti-suffragist flyer, as it perfectly encapsulates the consequences of the politicization of the female gender. Note the broken egg with the dead chick on the bottom right corner of the nest. This was 50 years before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land and millions of women have slaughtered the babes in their wombs in the name of "choice."

Oh yes, the anti-suffragists of that era knew exactly who they were dealing with.

As I noted in my first contribution to the Spearhead, the Women's suffrage movement as portrayed by feminist revisionist history, was based on the idea that women were "denied" the vote by oppressive, misogynist men, but the reality had nothing to do with "oppression." The real reason was based on the way in which society viewed the institution of marriage back then.
The most important thing to consider first, was the widely held belief system that was accepted by society at large in the bad old days of Patriarchal oppression…primarily with regards to marriage. Before the sexual revolution and cultural upheaval of the 1960’s, America was widely understood to be a Christian nation. Most Americans were church going citizens and the moral code of the Bible and it’s 10 commandments and the New Testament’s “golden rule” were the accepted ’social contract’ of moral principles.

Why is this relevant? Because the basic principle of a Christian-based society like the early America was the idea that marriage was the merging of a man and woman into a single entity. One unit. In the physical, spiritual and legal sense of the word.

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and also one of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson, wrote about how Marriage was considered under the eyes of the law:

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become, in law, only one person: the legal existence of the wife is consolidated into that of the husband. Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.

This was the true essence of the reasoning why women were never specifically designated as a separate, legal entity, apart from her husband in manners concerning society. In other words, the prevailing cultural attitude of the times was that in terms of civic duties, the vote was designated as one vote per family…one vote per household…or one vote per single entity – that single entity being a married couple.

And in the past, the vast majority of women did get married. Only a few women in any given community became “old maids” and spinsters. It was simply the cultural norm for women to get married and have children. Therefore, one vote, one household (provided the man of the house owned property).


Women need the vote like a Hen needs a bicycle.

7 comments:

luvsic said...

Fascinating history there.

This makes so much sense unraveling it backwards, hard to believe people could have actually predicted it as well.

I agree with you, when I first stumbled onto Roissy's blog, I loved the Game insights, but thought it was very peculiar that he was outspoken on this issue.

This guy's crazy!

It took about a couple months for me to unwind that position lol

Keoni Galt said...

Yeah...it took me quite awhile to understand just how much merit there was to Vox's anti-suffragist argument.

Laura said...

Thank you for the kind words and for expanding on my thoughts so well. :-)

I too had a hard time reconciling the suffrage part. I used to reject feminism, but think of course, that those first-wavers were the good ones. The more you learn about them, the more you realize just how radical they were. Therefore, if we are going to reject feminism we have to reject it all. And, as I have been discovering, that also means rejecting certain conservative and christian groups. A harsh reality.

This ideal that voting is a RIGHT is a misconception we were forced to believe. Kind of like healthcare is a RIGHT. Instead, it is a privilege. Prisoners and children know they have no RIGHT. I wonder when teenagers are going to start rebelling and claiming that they deserve the "right to vote" as well. After all, they could use the same arguments the suffragists did, "Since laws affect women[teenagers], shouldn't we have a say in the creation of those laws." Everyone also thinks that we have a Democracy, when it was really set up as a Republic.

"Note the broken egg with the dead chick on the bottom right corner of the nest. This was 50 years before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land and millions of women have slaughtered the babes in their wombs in the name of "choice."

How observant you are. I completely missed that. It adds great meaning.

Good job on the Spearhead article. I read that awhile back and was fascinated with the letter from Abigail Adams. Who would of thought? What's more, have you heard of the Abigail Adams Project? Started by women in the name of creating a more 'truthful' voting process, they were inspired by I believe the same letter you cited, that we should "remember the ladies" (half way down the link you'll see the story). I don't really see how "remember the ladies" has anything to do with their mission at hand, therefore I am lead to be believe that something more nefarious is at play.

Speaking of the rabbit hole, that is a good way to describe what I have been going through in finding all of these old articles. My mouth dropping most of the time. I have plenty more coming down the pipes. With the internet now, there is no excuse to not know the other side of history. All of this information that was purposefully kept hidden from us for years is now on full display.

Keoni Galt said...

Thanks Laura. I'm looking forward to reading more of your research and writing.

:)

rebeccafle@gmail.com said...

I was always the same as Laura, anit feminist but thinking the first wave must have been ok.
Then at university I chose a topic for my history essay which was about the suffragists and the suffragettes. I was amazed at what I found out. Reading the arguments against women's votes was very interesting. I also found the fact that most of the women pushing for this were rich and middle class. They generally had little understanding or appreciation of what was really needed by the many families who were in the lower classes. It was incredibly elitist!

I particularly find it difficult to admit this because i have always been a very politically conscious woman and couldn't wait to turn 18 and get to vote. On the other hand if society had not gone through this feminist awakening I would likely be married with kids now (age 29). I'd give up my vote for that world in a second. Stable families, men who are men and women who are women, few divorces - all this would lead to a much more marriage friendly environment.

Abject Man said...

@HL and Laura:

Excellent observations on your parts. I guess everyone goes through these stages, until it hits them that things are never what they seem to be, that it is naive to take anything in the political scene at its face value. To any woman who has finally understood why this instrument (along with countless others to create the gigantic and draconian state apparatus that we live under now) has been touted in the public sphere and raised to "sacred" status, it should be obvious that "giving up" vote is actually closing one of the biggest loopholes in politics used to enslave masses -- not just to their primal urges, to short-sightedness, and short-term-orientation, but ultimately to the Managerial State.

More power to you, HL.

Black&German said...

Excellent post.

I've also slowly been coming to the same seemingly-crazy conclusion. It wouldn't matter much to me, personally, whether or not I had the vote, to be perfectly honest. Since I've been married, my husband and I discuss the upcoming election, and then vote for the same party. I think that would be true of most happily-married women; they wouldn't really care. Even those who sometimes vote for a different party from their husbands would probably shrug at being disenfranchised. But the unmarried and feminist women would scream.

On a slightly different note, I came over here to ask you if you would read and comment on two posts I have done, and a third that is appearing tomorrow night, concerning traditional marriage and LTR Game. I would be much obliged, Sir, as I think your input would be valuable.