The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

[...]

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker—According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

[...]

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

[...]

Progress

We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.