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.