The Despotism of the Petticoat

Post image for The Despotism of the Petticoat

by Hawaiian Libertarian on September 24, 2009

One of the primary means of socially engineering mainstream attitudes is to redefine the past; to get the masses to accept and internalize a narrative interpretation of history.

This has been the primary methodology that feminism has used to advance it’s agenda, and in doing so, they have also benefited from no shortage of men blinded by chivalrous notions to uphold and reinforce the narrative as factual history. This is particularly clear when it comes to the idea of  “Women’s Rights,” especially in the case of voting.

The feminist narrative regarding suffrage goes something like this:

  • Women didn’t have the right to vote, only rich white males did.
  • Everyone knows that the rich white males of the past were  misogynists that deliberately kept women from voting to oppress them.
  • Any person that would dare to even think about rescinding female suffrage, is a sexist, misogynist pig; a neanderthal who should be banished to the cave from whence he skulked.
  • Therefore, any person that would even consider the idea of ending universal suffrage is a crazy lunatic who can be ignored and marginalized. Nothing they say has any merit if they hold such a crazy position.

This is historical revisionism and a deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning behind restricted suffrage so as to foment a gender war. The actual historical facts are this:

The U.S. Constitution as originally written never designated anything about suffrage. As far as the Founder’s were concerned, that came under the domain of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

At ratification, each of the 13 original States had the power to determine what laws and requirements governed who could and who could not participate in voting. In the beginning, in just about all 13 States, suffrage was only granted to property owners regardless of gender.

Now, of course, in the 18th century, the majority of property owners were most assuredly men. But there were a few women who indeed owned their own property – either from inheritance or their own efforts, and they were also extended the franchise to vote.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Anecdotal observations on game, women and politics « In Mala Fide
October 1, 2009 at 03:33
The Despotism of the Petticoat: Part 2
October 1, 2009 at 05:26
Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form the Misandry Party
January 28, 2010 at 11:31

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Ganttsquarry September 24, 2009 at 17:30

The notion of historical oppression of women, especially in the western world isn’t one I subscribe to – to say the least.

From Kanasawa

“Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.”

I would love to see voting based on a civics test+ net tax payer status. At the very least a disqualification from voting for receiving welfare benefits.

Ahh pipe dreams.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech September 24, 2009 at 19:50

Women’s suffrage has been a total disaster. Since 1920 freedom has gone down, and government has gotten exponentially larger. Anytime women get involved in politics its to take away freedom from men (and in many cases women too, but since all but a handful women don’t care about freedom they don’t notice the difference).

The WOMENS Christan Temperance Union was responsible for prohibition. MADD (MOTHERS against drunk driving) was responsible for pointlessly raising the drinking age to 21. The Million MOM March was all about taking away people’s freedom to own guns. The list just goes on and on.

Prime September 26, 2009 at 20:46

From the standpoint of your average man, employing a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis, the 19th amendment was a big mistake. For elite males at the top of the status hierarchy, it was more beneficial than costly. This is to say nothing of ‘rights’ or moral obligations based on a set of predefined values, one of which might be called ‘equality’.

One of the many ideas I’ve come across while reading Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal was his distinction between equality among men and equality among women. He seems to imply that total equality, the kind which is lamented and scorned by myself and others of similar mind, is a faulty concept. The equality spoken of by women could be in regards to greater equality among women, which would entail lesser equality among men due to enhanced female sexual choice and mobility. I.e., Lower-status males lose, while higher-status males reap the ‘equality spoils’. You may see how this relates with my first paragraph.

Dave From Hawaii September 28, 2009 at 17:24

Damn…this was only half of my intended post. I had saved it as a draft and something came up that kept me offline for a week.

Ah well, I’ll finish it up in a part two.

Welmer September 28, 2009 at 18:52

Oh, sorry about that, HL. I will post the second part as “Part II.”

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: