Posted on 08/13/2007 6:09:52 PM PDT by LightBeam
"... let me put the matter plainly: Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues including matters of national security? Or is it a sign--and a cause--of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?
There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights (as distinct from the protection of their human rights, property rights, and civil rights) inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today's Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. Women's primary external concern is safety and security. That is how it should be. Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism. Once women have the vote, there is, over time, a growing tendency for women to stop seeing their fathers and husbands as the primary providers of security, and to see the state in that role instead. This tendency encourages--and in turn is greatly exacerbated by--the increase in unmarried motherhood. Single women, both with children and not, overwhelmingly see the state as their principal provider and accordingly vote overwhelmingly for the left. If women's vote leads a society in the direction of socialist statism, the weakening of marriage and the family, the loss of male responsibility, the loss of basic freedoms (which only men are physically and temperamentally suited to defend), and the loss of national vigor, does that not suggest that giving women the vote was a mistake?
Then there is the direct effect on society of having women in high leadership positions. I believe that with rare exceptions such as a Margaret Thatcher or a Golda Meir, women are not well suited for upholding the basic external structure of society. That is preeminently a male, not a female task. To me, the female-dominated politics of the Scandinavian countries do not represent a positive and uplifting direction for the human race. The huge number of women in the British Parliament do not represent a growth of British national strength but its decline.
I do not have an agenda to take away women's political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed, and also we obviously have much more pressing issues facing us at this time. However, among the other aspects of modern culture and politics that traditionalists freely question, we need to question whether women's political equality is on balance a good thing for society. There are reasonable grounds for concluding that it is not."
The View from the Right. July 9, 2007
Well, let’s see. We wound up with shattered families, approximately 50,000,000 abortions, day care centers, STDs too numerous to count, dead-beat dads, Sarah Jessica Parker whoring around New York City, aggressive women in all movies and commercials, condoms in junior high school, nuns with no habits to identify them as brides of Christ, nuns for choice, Hillary, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, etc. (I know I missed a few).
Sorry, I forgot to list the positives. Maybe later. I’m tired.
No. Nothing good. They lost their skirts and gained the vote and everything went to hell.
It’s not politically correct, but a lot of the social problems we’ve seen develop since the ‘60s are a direct result of “women’s liberation” and the idea that women should be astronauts and should not worry about marriage and family. And that they should feel free to sleep with random men.
As a result of the above, you have record numbers of divorces, or women with children never married at all. That’s a tough societal problem right there, as disproportionate numbers of fatherless children are more likely to fall prey to the whole range of social pathologies such as becoming teen mothers, using drugs, or getting involved with youth gangs and getting in trouble with the law.
And the “sexual revolution” that came along at the same time freed up women to sleep around, but then the resulting babies born had no fathers in too many cases.
And too many girls grow up wanting to be lawyers and astronauts and don’t give a 2nd thought to being good wives and mothers. If they do become wives and mothers, it all too often is not their highest priority in life. which in turn leads to problems with the children and a broken marriage.
Gee so many of our social problems are interrelated with each other and interrelated with the breakdown of the family in modern western society. It’s a shame.
I have said for years that I would happily give up my right to vote if it meant that women everywhere could not vote (and I have 2 level-headed sensible daughters that would [eventually ... not old enought yet] lose voting rights too). It would be worth it! Lose voting rights ... gain a sensible electorate. What a deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.