In article  , Grizzlie
Antagonist   wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:46:25 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
>  wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> The theory before was that women were represented at the ballot box by
> the men in their lives so, in fact, they were not without
> representation.

The married ones, yes. The single ones, no.
>
>
>
>>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?
>
>
>
> Do you have proof that suffragettes were also demonstrating for a
> progressive income tax at the same time they were demonstrating for
> suffrage?

It had to do with the government seeing a chance to get those millowrkers'
paycecks. The taxation didn't come from the suffragettes though it did count
in the decision to give them the vote. Enfranchisement and all that, you
know.
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
> Are you saying that you actually WOULD favor the elimination of
> women's suffrage if it also meant the end of taxation on women's
> earnings?

Fuck yes! How many times do I need to say this, Christ, I've been saying
THIS for years! You think it's a glib reply, but it's not.

Let's be real, it's not like there is much of anyone, Republican OR Democrat
that's worth voting for. What would I or most of the women (and men) who
don't bother to vote anyways be losing out on? Isn't the government going to
hell because of 'meddlesome' women in politics and the fem-o-centric,
neo-socialist politics they espouse?

I don't vote, I don't pay taxes.

Our household income rises by the 40% the government takes from me, we save
faster and my husband can work less and live more. What's NOT to support
there?

Deb.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/2/05 10:15:27 PM ---