In 1920, after a long battle dating to before the Civil War, American women won the right to vote. Women have become an important part of the electorate, with a majority of women choosing the winner in the majority of recent US presidential elections.
Despite assertions that women care about the "SHE" issues – social security, health care, and education – there is evidence that a majority women have succumbed to the tempting blandishments of gender politics. White women seem to be abandoning the candidate who espouses positions in support of the "SHE" issues in favor of a slate which is vocal in their stance to radically eliminate public access to all three. The British satire blog The Spoof crudely puts it thusly:
But now that Obama has [slammed the] door on Hill's hopes and Johnny McC has come to their [rescue] with another vagined candidate, American dames can't get enough of forced crisis pregnancies, guns galore, Iraq till the cows come home and to hell with the poor, the immigrant and the unemployed!
I want to think that women aren't that shallow and that they can't be swayed so easily. Don't most of the American product commercials show women as knowing the right thing to do when there's a problem, rescuing their doltish men from using the wrong product? But considering that women are more like men than not, I have to surrender to the reality that women can be – and are – as shallow as men.
Far too many Good Orange County (CA) Republican men I know are in violation of their religious morality and good taste, sending me Photoshopped pictures of Gov. Palin's head atop the nude body of a comely lass. Some have expressed support for Palin generated only by gleeful, reptillian-brained lust from viewing such "art".
While not pornographic in nature, the appeal to women regarding Palin is definitely sex-based. I for one find it very ironic that women would fall for such a pitch to support a female candidate who opposes everything they value, especially representing a party which to this day continues to express support for the very values orated to oppose passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. But then, men usually ran the anti-suffrage organizations behind the scenes, secure in their ability to keep their women in their places. Palin is just a pretty woman who plays into this scenario because she loves the attention it brings her.
I don't use Conservapedia as a source very often, but they express their reasons for opposition to female suffrage rather succinctly. One would get the impression that they wish they could reinstate those conditions in the modern day. With the cooperation of today's "liberated" women voters, they just might!
But in my house, my three women voters have no use for Palin or the Republicans. I just hope that there are more like them than like those falling for the McCain campaign's pandering. To assist with this hope, I strongly recommend reading An Anti-Suffrage Monologue, presented in 1913 by a Unitarian minister named Marie Jenney Howe.
This monologue was the Vagina Monologues of its day, being widely presented to suffrage groups. In this work, she alludes to the "religious" belief that "female dependence, irrationality, and delicacy" balanced by a lust for political power prove that women can't handle the heavy responsibility of the vote. In her Second Couplet, she notes:
If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one: If the women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce.