To label the original prohibitionists as the “religious right” is a gross anachronism. Many prohibitionists were self-described “progressives” who considered prohibition as part of social improvement along with public education, wage and hour laws, the abolition of child labor, and government regulation of business.
Also, Canada had an active prohibition movement which succeeded in imposing prohibition in several provinces (including Ontario), but was unsuccessful nationally mostly because of Quebec.
The nexus between women’s suffrage and prohibition is real, although never precise. Both women’s suffrage and prohibition advanced in fits and starts before World War I, and the correlation was never perfect. Then World War I changed everything, and both were added with shocking swiftness to the federal Constitution.
Certainly, at the time, people perceived a connection–liquor dealers were always against female suffrage, prohibitionists were for it, and each played a part in arguments about the other.
If you give women the vote, this will lead to social unrest. There may be protests, and lots of upset people. We don’t want social unrest, do we? Then no votes for women.
Women voting ? It’s well known that women are the Daughters of Eve and the tools of Satan. Letting them vote will bring disaster to America, since they’ll repeat history, succumb to the Devil’s wiles and elect the Antichrist to the Presidency !! Letting them vote will in fact be one of the signs of the Apocalypse ( since they can hardly vote the Antichrist into office until he shows up ). That means that two or three years after women get the vote ( 5 to 7 if he runs for a second term ) the world will come to an end ! And we’ll all go to Hell for electing the Antichrist, and the demons will make fun of us for letting women vote ! And the women will get good treatment by sleeping with the demons !
So, just say no to the damnation of America and to your wife leaving you for a better endowed demon ! No on women voting !
In the (presumed) spirit of the thread, I know how to prevent women voting without having to legislate for it.
Simply organise long queues for the voting booths. Anyone who speaks is disbarred from voting!
Exactly! Though if a man happens to talk, you know, once or twice, for an hour at a shot maybe, we might let it slide. 'Cause we’re not oppressive or anything.
Hey, that woman sneezed! That’s nearly talking - Haul her away, boys!
I’m not sure about this femVoting or civil expression thing, now that I think it through. If we allow women to do that, won’t it cost a lot more, in terms of additional polling machines and more vote counting?
I have nothing against women voting myself, but if I’m a taxpayer from a smaller community, it will just cost to much to allow it. So, I take back my tentative support for femVoting and civil expression (love that term!) – it will just cost too much.
What if a woman is having her menses? Can we trust her to make a rational decision? Also it violates tradition. Our country was founded on the principle of one man one vote. We are demeaning the lives of the men that fought to preserve that principle. The Bible also makes it clear that women are the property of men and must cleave unto them. I don’t know what “cleave” means but it must be important or God wouldn’t have said it.
ETA: and France allows women to vote so it must not be a good idea.
United Kingdom pre-1918
Ruled over the largest Empire in world history
1918
UK enfranchises women
United Kingdom post-1918
Empire falls apart, now consists of the Falklands and Gibraltar. You can’t go on safari in the Falklands or Gibraltar, for the love of God.
Women voting would be disastrous for our children! Who is going to watch the kids while they go out and vote? They’ll be left home alone and smoke cigarettes or drink demon rum or look at the dirty pictures in the Sears catalog. Then where would we be?
Plus, if women vote, they may eventually get the idea that they can run for political office, and with that example they may want to get jobs after they are married. What will happen to our children then? And could any man stand coming home without dinner on the table? Marriage would be threatened.
I say we have a referendum to nip this in the bud. If we pass a law, we can call it the Defense of Marriage Act.
Provided the man owned property. But then we let people who did not have a real, tangible commitment to the places they lived start having a say over those who did, and American civilization has gone downhill ever since.
Odd word there - it’s its own antonym. Read it whichever way gives you the interpretation you want.
