In article  , Grizzlie
Antagonist   wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:32:42 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
>  wrote:
>
>>In article  , Grizzlie
>>Antagonist   wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2005/chapin030105.htm
>>>
>>> BC: One of the most underrated books that I’ve ever read was Modern
>>> Sex: Liberation and its Discontents which is a compilation of essays
>>> from City Journal. An essay of yours, "Feminists and
their Enemies" is
>>> included. Would you agree with Justice Bork when he stated in
>>> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
>>> that radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement
>>> to come down to us from the Sixties [p.193]? I mean obviously the
>>> radical feminists have some serious competition for the title.
>>>
>>> HS: Simple answer: yes, I would. You may recall that in my book I
>>> talked a bit about the ANTI-suffrage movement, which of course has
>>> been very much derided by history. But I found it fascinating to go
>>> back and read what those people were saying, and realize how prescient
>>> they were in some ways; notably, those having to do with the impact of
>>> the women's movement on children and family. Obviously, I'm not
>>> advocating rolling back suffrage -- but I agree we're still reluctant
>>> to honestly deal with the how destructive radical feminism has been to
>>> so many lives.
>>>
>>Gummint's NEVER gonna roll back suffrage -
>
>
> I think that it will happen someday, though not in our lifetimes.
>
>
>
>>look at all the taxable revenue
>>they'll lose!
>
>
> I don't think this argument holds water.
>
> I've heard that men, as a group, are net contributors and that women,
> as a group, are net receivers.
>
> But even if this isn't true, the fact is that foreign nationals can't
> vote in U.S. elections either, but I imagine that if they make money
> here, they can be taxed on it here.
>
> So why should eliminating women's suffrage mean that women can't be
> taxed on income?

Because of a pesky little item about taxation without representation. Come
on, G.A, you cannot tell me there wasn't a big connection to suffrage AND
the Income Tax being created at the same time? To keep one, taxation, while
overturning the other, suffrage, will mean that women will STILL have
political power, in effect we'll still be voting. Think about it.

Better to cut women entirely out of the political picture all the way - even
to their money going into politics, and by dint of them earning untaxed
capital, it will put the emphasis back into home and maintaining marriage
for many, because that will be where the power they do wield will have the
most impact. The coolest part is, a system where married couples have one
untaxed income, it allows those homes with stable marriages to thrive. Also
the sheer economic necessity when the social services are cut (remember,
women are not paying taxes here, so there's less excuse to need them) will
change the desirability of single motherhood in a heartbeat.


>
> ------------------------------------
> grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com
>
> "Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's player
> of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
>     - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004
>
>
> "Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
> hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
>
>     - Horace, the Roman poet
>
>
> Logical positivism, dominant in American and
> British universities, is suicidally bent upon
> establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
> thing.  (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
> Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
> himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
> invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
> insect, not a man).
>
>      - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
>        Things



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/2/05 1:34:46 PM ---