Extreme socons and the Nineteenth Amendment

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Earlier this year pro-life activist and increasingly unhinged social media Trump surrogate Abby Johnson advocated returning to "household voting" that "in a Godly household" would be exercised by the husband in an extremely cursed Twitter exchange. Last week, writer Michael Warren Davis expanded on this idea in a full-scale diatribe against women's suffrage in Crisis magazine. (Perhaps fortunately, his sense of the political landscape is so disconnected from reality that he seems to believe it's not only a mainstream view but the consensus view that American law and government worked better in the age of Lochner and eugenics than they do now.)

I had never seen this before; I was under the impression that women's right to vote was the very definition of a settled issue and that any extremists who felt otherwise would keep their dissent to themselves. However, I've since been informed that this is in fact a position one has occasionally encountered for a while now in far-flung religious countercultures like Quiverfull families and some Hasidic Jews--and, evidently, the extreme edge of Traditionalist Catholicism as well.

What to make of this? Is this position actually gaining visibility in an age of massive gendered voting gaps and an increasingly normalized sensibility that unfriendly demographics should have their votes suppressed, or are the wingnuts just happening to sound off now because it's the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment? Is it possible that women's suffrage will enter the general stock of hard-right gripes with the Constitution along with the income tax and the direct election of senators, or is that a bridge too far? I open the floor to anybody who's masochistic enough to join me in thinking about this topic.

[lfromnj]

I think I remember a tweet from gun girl arguing for something like this to preserve freedom lol.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I don't have a real answer to the topic but I can provide you with an example of supporters of this position outside of the United States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party

These guys have consistently took 2% of the vote and seem to have advocated for household suffrage for a long time although I cannot confirm they do now.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I think I remember a tweet from gun girl arguing for something like this to preserve freedom lol.

Her ridiculous logic being that women favored gun control.

[lfromnj]

However I would ironically support an amendment banning postgraduates from donating to candidates. It would probably improve politician quality all around.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

However I would ironically support an amendment banning postgraduates from donating to candidates. It would probably improve politician quality all around.

Let's ban campaign donations altogether. Political candidacies must be 100% merch-funded.

[afleitch]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

To be honest the kind of people who would like to see the Nineteenth Amendment repealed would probably also be happy about mass sexual abstinence.
At least, outside of marriage.

[Alcibiades]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

To be honest the kind of people who would like to see the Nineteenth Amendment repealed would probably also be happy about mass sexual abstinence.
At least, outside of marriage.

I don’t know. These people may claim they want it, but they tend to be massive hypocrites.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

To be honest the kind of people who would like to see the Nineteenth Amendment repealed would probably also be happy about mass sexual abstinence.
At least, outside of marriage.

I don’t know. These people may claim they want it, but they tend to be massive hypocrites.

I don't know. I tend to think that public figures of this persuasion (like Abby Johnson) are more likely to be massive hypocrites than random commoners with the same ideas.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

To be honest the kind of people who would like to see the Nineteenth Amendment repealed would probably also be happy about mass sexual abstinence.
At least, outside of marriage.

The thing about Lysistrata was that it wasn't just single women doing it.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'd fully support a Lysistrata redux in such a scenario.

To be honest the kind of people who would like to see the Nineteenth Amendment repealed would probably also be happy about mass sexual abstinence.
At least, outside of marriage.

The thing about Lysistrata was that it wasn't just single women doing it.

I know.
In truth that kind of people would only approve for nine months. Then the birthrate would suddenly drop to zero and they would freak out.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Fortunately, repealing the 19th Amendment is something that 2/3 of both houses of congress and 38/50 states would never, ever vote for, plus society is becoming less religious and less centered around the nuclear family with each generation, so I don't think we have much to fear in terms of this actually happening.

[Crane]

In the interest of fairness, suffrage for males should be revoked for the approximate duration equal to the time women were not able to vote. We'll get back together in 2162 and regroup.

[darklordoftech]

Abby Johnson is clearly using socons to enrich herself.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

In the interest of fairness, suffrage for males should be revoked for the approximate duration equal to the time women were not able to vote. We'll get back together in 2162 and regroup.

It's not in the interest of fairness.  It's about you being twisted.

That's actually a pretty sick sentiment, but it reveals much about the Far Left.  They don't want "equality".  They want vengeance for their constituent groups.

[Donerail]

In the interest of fairness, suffrage for males should be revoked for the approximate duration equal to the time women were not able to vote. We'll get back together in 2162 and regroup.

It's not in the interest of fairness.  It's about you being twisted.

That's actually a pretty sick sentiment, but it reveals much about the Far Left.  They don't want "equality".  They want vengeance for their constituent groups.

it's very obviously a sarcastic response to the idea of household voting and not a serious policy proposal

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I’m disappointed in Abby Johnson for even suggesting this.

[Senator Incitatus]

An interesting idea! I support household unit voting but it could be equally exercised by the wife or husband, in my opinion. Glad it is being discussed.

[mianfei]

Earlier this year pro-life activist and increasingly unhinged social media Trump surrogate Abby Johnson advocated returning to "household voting" that "in a Godly household" would be exercised by the husband in an extremely cursed Twitter exchange. Last week, writer Michael Warren Davis expanded on this idea in a full-scale diatribe against women's suffrage in Crisis magazine. (Perhaps fortunately, his sense of the political landscape is so disconnected from reality that he seems to believe it's not only a mainstream view but the consensus view that American law and government worked better in the age of Lochner and eugenics than they do now.)

I had never seen this before; I was under the impression that women's right to vote was the very definition of a settled issue and that any extremists who felt otherwise would keep their dissent to themselves. However, I've since been informed that this is in fact a position one has occasionally encountered for a while now in far-flung religious countercultures like Quiverfull families and some Hasidic Jews--and, evidently, the extreme edge of Traditionalist Catholicism as well.

What to make of this? Is this position actually gaining visibility in an age of massive gendered voting gaps and an increasingly normalized sensibility that unfriendly demographics should have their votes suppressed, or are the wingnuts just happening to sound off now because it's the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment? Is it possible that women's suffrage will enter the general stock of hard-right gripes with the Constitution along with the income tax and the direct election of senators, or is that a bridge too far? I open the floor to anybody who's masochistic enough to join me in thinking about this topic.

Essentially, Republicans know that politics in today’s America divides almost perfectly along the lines of who could vote before the Fifteenth Amendment. Those who could vote before the Fifteenth Amendment vote Republican and those who could not vote Democratic.

There is, of course, no accident to this. Before The Communist Manifesto, all philosophers, including the Founding Fathers of the United States, outright rejected anything approaching what we today think of as “democracy”. Natural law, it was believed, excluded women, people of color, and urban dwellers from participation in politics. More strikingly, natural law was viewed as excluding females, people of color, and urbanites for precisely the same reason the Republicans want them excluded today: because they would demand public goods and services without paying for them and make the white rural men who have small requirement for them pay the price.

This philosophy has remained intact amongst rural and lower-class white Americans to a degree unseen anywhere else in the world, probably because so much rural white settlement in America was from highly conservative religious groups trying to avoid persecution in Europe, and because these groups can maintain a comfortable low-input lifestyle due to high soil fertility that is impossible in Australia or South Africa.

So, to answer your question, “Away, haul away, we'll haul away, Joe!”, the Nineteenth Amendment is at least as much in the sights of “hard-right gripes with the Constitution” as the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. So is – to an even greater degree – the Fifteenth Amendment, which has been in the sights of these people ever since it was ratified 151 years ago.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

An interesting idea! I support household unit voting but it could be equally exercised by the wife or husband, in my opinion. Glad it is being discussed.

Yeah, and we could give each household a certain number of votes in proportion to its size (so as to not dilute the influence of large families). And maybe each member of the household could cast one of the votes.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

An interesting idea! I support household unit voting but it could be equally exercised by the wife or husband, in my opinion. Glad it is being discussed.

Yeah, and we could give each household a certain number of votes in proportion to its size (so as to not dilute the influence of large families). And maybe each member of the household could cast one of the votes.

So you are proposing the right to vote for little children? Pass.

[Samof94]

I’m disappointed in Abby Johnson for even suggesting this.

Even much of the “pro life” movement probably thinks she’s nuts. This is Roy Moore territory.

[MasterJedi]

It would seem that "household" voting would get rid of a lot of conservative power as a household would greatly benefit the younger generations and take away a lot of conservative votes.

[Alcibiades]

It would seem that "household" voting would get rid of a lot of conservative power as a household would greatly benefit the younger generations and take away a lot of conservative votes.

Exactly. Married people are much more Republican than single people.