In 1895, US Women Did Not Want the Vote
November 2, 2022
"Woman does not wish to turn aside from her higher work, which is itself the end of life, to devote herself to government, which exists only that this higher work may be done. Can she not do both? No!"
The Suffragette movement from 100
years ago is today's Transgender movement--a 100% media-created movement
thrust upon us by the usual suspects.
The following is based on an article from The Atlantic magazine dated September 1903: Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage
By Edward Menez
(henrymakow.com)
In 1895, the women of Massachusetts were asked by the state whether they wanted the right to vote.
Of the 575,000 voting women in the state, only 22,204 cared enough about it to submit a "yes" vote. That is less than 4% of eligible women. Bear in mind that is for the progressive state of Massachusetts, and numbers would have been much lower in the Southern states.
So in a mere 125 years or so things have really changed. What has caused the change?
One major reason is that men and women viewed themselves as different in the past, but in a complementary way. Men and women are not "equal". Men have certain natural advantages in strength. Women have the advantage over men in patience or forbearance.
A woman felt justified by raising a family, children, and by their faith in God. She was not seeking power, argumentation, and combativeness, which were a man's domain.
The natural argument arose in the article regarding women voting: "Are women to make the laws and men to enforce them?"
This would be the logical outcome if women accounted for 50% or more of the votes, and voted in a contrary way to the men.
For instance: "Suppose that in New York city the women should vote for prohibition and the men should vote against it; is it to be expected that the men would arm themselves to enforce against their fellow men a law which they themselves condemned as neither wise nor just?" (Good question. We did end up with Prohibition in the United States starting in 1920 and it failed and needed to be repealed in 1933).
A woman had the direct mission to sustain life: to raise children, care for her husband and her home, and to praise God and His way of life. She was a positive influence on others, and did not seek out the negative. It was not her nature to be confrontational.
A woman had more important and immediate things to do than trying to make laws, enforce them, and punish people who break them. A woman is not an enforcer-type (police/military).
(Fascist extremists, left, represent a direct threat to the Communist World Order)Yes, women had a nurturing role back at the turn of the twentieth century. Her realm was the home, which was the building block of a society. Her highest work was to minister to life.
Women seem to intuitively know that "Ye cannot serve both God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24).
It's almost as if women look around at men and laugh at the silliness they do in trying to create a society structured on rules and laws, and the futility of men trying to keep that society incorruptible and apart from power and control.
As a disclaimer of sorts, keep in mind that this article from The Atlantic in 1903 was written by a man. The Atlantic magazine was founded in 1857 by MOSES Dresser Phillips. Its current editor-in-chief is Jeffrey Goldberg. What sort of things does The Atlantic currently publish? Groveling drivel that makes your blood boil.
SATANISTS SHAMED TRADITIONAL WOMEN
I have often felt that women are naturally content to just let men wallow in their world of competition, while they stand apart, uncomplaining, and simply do their higher work. Over the course of my lifetime, I saw the working father/stay-at-home mother dynamic of my youth change drastically.
I saw the media begin to cry out for justice and equality for women, in the media's incomparably twisted way. This meant the beginning of Affirmative Action and women receiving high-paying "power" jobs. This meant women competing directly with men. This was not the complementary role to men that women were meant to play, and I think resentment started to build on the part of men.
The media can always find a problem with something when none actually exists. They then ramp up their shrill voices until we take notice. Problem-reaction-solution.
It has thus come to this: Women, like men, now seek power. The media tells us that women want "equality" in every way, whether that means being able to become a soldier or being able to look like a man. They want women to have the power to cut off their breasts, kill a baby up until it is born, or end their family at will, thanks to No-Fault Divorces. In fact, over 90% of divorces involving women who are college graduates are initiated by the woman.
Lord Acton has the answer: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." By and large, women have become corrupted seeking "equality" and have largely turned away from God and His guidelines for the way we should live, which is given to us in The Bible.
Did the power trip of today's women start with less than 4% of them demanding the ballot-box?
No, the media foisted this fake crisis upon us over 100 years ago, just as they are now foisting the 0.5% of the population who are transgender upon us as a way of life. The Suffragette movement from 100 years ago is today's Transgender movement--a 100% media-created movement thrust upon us by the usual suspects.
Jennifer said (November 3, 2022):
Women should forfeit the vote to save the family. Anti-Suffragettes Movement
A hundred years, the Suffragettes plea in the Congressional hearings debated the pros and cons of the female vote.
The men discussed their worst nightmares -which some brushed off -came true.
Especially that the female vote would be extremely disruptive to family life. Wives would use it as a manipulative weapon against their husbands —which they do today!
And it would destroy mothers —and it did —who can forget that “mother," who threw her 6 year old son on the street with a sign that he voted for Trump.
The child was crying. The angry mother made him pack a bag and she kicked him out of their home and made him stand on the street for a second grade mock presidential election where he voted for Trump —a candidate his mother did not like —so she punished her own child —crushing his budding manhood.
Women don’t understand —we get to vote for who we want in a free society and it should be without emotional punishment.
But just as the men noted back in early 1900s women are too emotional, too manipulative to handle the stresses of politics.
I lost close female friends over the vote —because women today, as women yesterday, as women always, just can’t separate the issues —they take it too personal.