Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- From: Sean_MacCloud@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
On May 31, 3:34 am, "MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well this is one that I wouldnt have expected from Fox, an analysis of what
women have accomplished and changed as they recieved the vote and had more say
in politics. For those who know their history in fine detail, what happened in
germany was a product of the new womens vote, and the vote of the young. Two
groups in societies that some would say are the most gullible.
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are
impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly
by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Karl Marx
The article is full of all manner of interesting tit bits, with links to all
kinds of interesting papers, like this:
How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result
of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for
1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as
voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide
range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in
state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for
federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more
women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions,
the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps
explain why American government started growing when it did.
So Marx knew what we later would find out in detail, that when women enter
politics, the nature of poltics changes.
Female political thinkers start focusing on what they imagine would be the
kind of government the US should have, a socialist one. This was the same way
they answered the question in Germany, and Socialism was the answer in the
United States as well.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and
Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A.
The Fox News article deems to go farther. It starts to link up, for the first
time in MSM, all the implications of the womans vote. A discussion that was
shut down a long time ago by painting it as just the oppressors protecting
Here are a few facts from the article:
a.. For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently
than men. Without the women's vote, Republicans would have swept every
presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
b.. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of
government? The answer is women's suffrage.
c.. Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This
could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against
certain risks in life.
They attempt, and do quite well, at establishing that the constant increase of
the state till it breaks is a natural occurance to how they see the power of
the state being used in their benifit.
The major thing that the article doesn't show is how as a political mass they
are oblivious to where their leaders are going to take them eventually and
what they outcome will be. A point that can usually be summed up in "it may
look the same, but it cant turn out the same, since we are the ones doing it".
however, when one thinks of overburdening taxes, huge government, wasteful
policies, and lots of other things, until this fox article, few would have
been daring enough to place the blame at the feet of those making the changes.
Even after accounting for a range of other factors - such as
industrialization, urbanization, education and income - the impact of granting
of women's suffrage on per capita state government expenditures and revenue
Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been
flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state
governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued
growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled.
The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after
women started voting.
In a decade the expenditure from the citizens to the state doubled, and as the
burden increased, their solution was to continually increase the state.
Women's suffrage also explains much of the federal government's growth from
the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as
women's voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level
as men's, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became
an increasingly important part of the electorate.
But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s,
just as women's share of the voting population was leveling off, something
else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising
divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.
Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more
than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than
their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote
Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more
progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.
But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women
with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are
divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for
Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large
part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.
Women's suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected
policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that
granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance
movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the "gender
gap" is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting
dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.
The one thing the article doesnt do is show us where all this will eventually
lead. Given that we are about to elect the most communist of democratic party
As was done between WWII the womens and youth votes are about to vote in a
socialist system that will do all for its constituency. one only needs to
watch FAther Micheal Fleger speaking at Trinity United Church, to see that
perhaps the left today isnt that far from the same racism painted as truth and
justice in the past.
Is it really different when someone else does it?
One only needs to read the leaders of todays feminists, as quoted above, to
understand where they are taking us.
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that
precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The
Though one could never actually believe that thats the end result of a
constant series of massive state size increases for socialist programs and
for the complete article and your own personal take on things, go to:
Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise
"Any positive future has a lot to learn from the best of the past."
It's like I said a long time ago here...
The book title by dame sommers "who stole feminism" is a misnomer
(ultimately unwittingly or purposely meant to divert eyes). The real
story and title is "who stole liberalism. How the inanity and selfish
of females forced men to autodestruct that which they struggled for so
many millenia to achieve".
Democracy specifically and civilizations domestication process in
general has a fatal flaw: a co-incident power vacumm that allows
undeserved ascendency into hypocritical authority positions (which
shouldn't be that at all if the tenents of democracy were maintainable
[_and they are not_]) ultimately forcing "scotty" to hit the auto
Scuttle the ship. The parasites have taken over. Next time -- if there
is a next time-- founders of what ever order will hopefully be 'older
and wiser' and prevent power vacums and the inevitable hypocrisy.
- Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- Prev by Date: Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- Next by Date: Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- Previous by thread: Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism
- Next by thread: Re: What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism