General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNational Review Blogger Michael Walsh Calls for Repeal of Women’s Suffrage
Nevertheless, youre on to something Ive been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called Progressive Era amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920.
One of those has already been repealedthe 18th amendment, which ushered in Prohibitionwhich Walsh admits. Thats not really what hes on about anyway:
The income-tax amendment was a self-evident attack on capitalism and led to the explosive growth of the federal government we currently enjoy today. (Without it, thered be no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment.) Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and itsunholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And womens suffrage . . . well, lets just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.
I suppose were supposed to imagine its a joke, because he takes a jovial tone for the last one. But if so, it doesnt make sense. Hes dead fucking serious about the other twothree, really, because he only seems to be against Prohibition because he believes it gave Democrats a leg up, which is one of those deaf-to-historical-change moments that lead Republicans to imagine that Lincoln would have anything to do with the modern version of their partyso, as a joke, it falls completely apart. If he hadnt rolled it up with the other amendments initially, the joke defense he clearly has in his pocket would be an easier sell. Something like, Ive long advocated for the repeal of 3 of the Progressive Amendments (though one has already been repealed), and hey, ladies, sometimes you make me wish to repeal all four. It would still be a misogynist joke, but easier to sell as a joke, even if not a very funny one.
As it stands, its clear hes doing what Al Franken calls kidding on the square, where you say something you mean but pretend its a joke so you dont have to take responsibility for it. Franken has some fun with it in his books, calling himself out for it and therefore turning a typically unfunny bit of passive-aggression into a for-real joke, but Im guessing you all know that because of course youve read his books. Kidding on the square is a favorite tool of sexists, who want to say sexist things, but are too cowardly to say them directly. Walsh is just a particularly obvious example. And no, none of the other National Review bloggers argued with him on this point.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/20/national-review-blogger-calls-for-repeal-of-womens-suffrage/
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That's pretty deplorable. Basically Walsh doesn't like democracy because it's not giving him what he wants. I sympathize (I remember Bush being elected twice and my current governor Rick Scott won an election as well), but don't think that's a good enough reason to give up democracy.
Bryant
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)bullshit and stupid.
niyad
(113,720 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,485 posts)meow2u3
(24,775 posts)I'm all for due process, but in the case of Tea Party fascists, I'll have to make an exception.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)JHB
(37,163 posts)niyad
(113,720 posts)is NOT my team, so, no, I have no plans to "take one for the team"
he can pretend he is joking all he wants, but he is not the first person to actually talk about repealing the 19th. the fact that people think they can actually say bs like this is worrisome, actually. (echoes of "the handmaid's tale", anyone?)
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)(the wife of Bush-era U.S. Solicitor (the attorney who argues for the government before the SOTUS) Ted Olson, who died on the D.C. plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11) were together arguing for just that back in 2000, saying that women hadn't done anything good with the "generous gift they'd been given" and that all the bad stuff us terrible Dems have been responsible for in the 20th century was largely their fault for largely voting for Dems. Their thinking was that since us gals hadn't done right by such a "gift", (i.e., done what THEY wanted) then it should be taken away from us. That was chilling enough, but the fact that they were women made it even worse.
Sometimes I have to check the calendar to make sure it really is 2013.
niyad
(113,720 posts)more of that sickening, condescending patriarchal bs. rights are not "gifts". and the women who parrot that line are more sickening than the men.
2013 bce, perhaps? or some twisted version of the twilight zone?
Aristus
(66,487 posts)It's a shame, though, that you won't be able to do anything of value with it...
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)What he cares about is attention which will get him and his publication more money; it will work, unfortunately.
Aristus
(66,487 posts)n/t
Initech
(100,121 posts)Yeah let's keep dragging America back into the dark ages.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)meow2u3
(24,775 posts)It's simple. All you have to do is require that voters have to have an emotional age of 18 to vote, so that would make teabagger misogynists ineligible. They're too young to vote, anyhow--at least emotionally.
Ilsa
(61,709 posts)No one is forcing them to vote.
Do these bozos really think that saying this shit out loud is going to bring more women in to work for their cause?
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's time to call them what they are - they aren't conservatives anymore, they are full-blown retrograde reactionary. And that's scary. And I would add that if they get to repeal everything back to the 16th Amendment, it's only a matter of time before they'll start wanting to repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th...