8 thoughts on “Reversal of Women’s Suffrage”

  1. Birth control and a plethora of inventions that minimized muscle strength as an advantage…these are mainly what changed the dynamic of male/female relations, at least in Western civilization.

    Women definitely think differently as a group. I think that the majority of men have not voted for a Democratic/leftist president in about 50 years. A majority of women have in most elections. I may not be precisely right, but the thrust of the male vs. female tendency is rather consistent and strong.

  2. The speaker mentioned the Victorian era (LOL ). Did he know Queen Victoria was a woman and reigned Britain and Ireland for 63 years and 214 days !

    Her reign was longer than those of any of her predecessors, constituted the Victorian era, a period of industrial, political, scientific, and military change within the United Kingdom marked by a great expansion of the British Empire.

    Fifty % of our population are women . That they can vote is a good thing.

    1. We will have to disagree on this one, Fred. Let’s presume Queen Victoria governed like a strong conservative– she might never have assumed power if she had to be elected by a 50 percent female population.

    2. Fred, Victoria was even more of a figurehead than Joe Biden. That she didn’t rule over anything and that Britain adopted free trade as a religion starting about 1844 are both crucial to Britain’s fabulous success.

      Britain was so enthusiastic as they enjoyed the blessings of free trade that they perceived Lincoln’s War with particular clarity to have been a war over the North’s 50% Morrill tariff and the South being a free trade confederacy–it made the North’s tariff uncollectible. Lincoln said roughly ‘I care nothing about your slaves, but I need to collect that tariff.’ Charles Dickens’ articles on it are very good deeply researched. Even Brit Karl Marx saw it.

      1. I think, J. Sobran, there was an enormous amount of expansionist determination on the part of the British. They felt it was their mission to conquer and colonize and civilize (and perhaps evangelize) certain parts of the world. They undoubtedly gained from this empire-building. Of course, it all fell apart during the 20th century.

        1. True enough, Triad. But their religious adoption of free trade was the sine qua non of it. They became extremely productive because of it, thereby able to afford the most expensive navy in the world.

          Yes, and then they literally committed suicide by engaging in 2 World Wars of choice that rendered Britain a basket case. Even now they are poorer per capita than Mississippi and poorer than the country they bombed to smithereens (killing millions of civilians!) in WWII, Germany.

          1. It should be noted also, J. Sobran, that they extracted resources from the areas they colonized, and this also augmented their wealth and empire-building.

            The story of the modern UK is a sad one despite having such a distinguished history.

Comments are closed.