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.




>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?



>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?

------------------------------------
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 10:15:26 PM ---