"Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net> wrote
>Bryan Moss wrote:
>>
>> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>>
>> > I've said it once and I'll say it again. A large number of women do
not
>> > regard freedom to be nearly as important as security. They will, by
and
>> > large, prefer to trade freedom for greater security and protection.
This
>> > is their nature as maternal beings that prefer consensus and
compromise
>> > to ideals and principles. This is why the whole, "don't be cruel,
it's
>> > for the Children" routine the democrats always pull is so effective,
as
>> > it tugs at the maternal memes that women have. The great erosion in
>> > privacy and individual liberty in this century began after we
granted
>> > women the right to vote. To Kathryn and other women on the list who
>> > probably take offense at this, I challenge you to prove me wrong.
>>
>> So then, Mike, what's the solution?
>>
>> BM
>
>Frankly I don't know, ....
Well, it's not realistic to take back the vote. Even if women's suffrage was not justified at the time, it pretty much is now.
Let me explain. Voting is a non-violent (more or less) substitute for fighting to settle differences. Men were assumed to be more or less equal as fighters, so a majority vote (among men) was a predictor of how a war over the issue would come out. But women couldn't vote because women couldn't fight.
But this is no longer true. With modern weapons women are roughly equal in fighting ability to men. They even serve in the armed forces of the USA, even in some combat roles.
My suggestion is to put a twist on the "for the children" rhetoric. When the subject of giving up civil rights "for the children" comes up, rather than "selfishly" demanding to keep YOUR right at the "expense" of the children. Just ask the Soccermoms, "do you want your children to grow up free or as slaves?" Might make them think a bit.
Edgar W. Swank <EdgarSwank@Juno.com>
(preferred)
Edgar W. Swank <cryoprez@jps.net>
(for files/msgs >50K)