BlogWonks

Well this is one that I wouldnt have expected from Fox, an analysis of what women have accomplished and changed as they recieved the vote and had more say in politics. For those who know their history in fine detail, what happened in germany was a product of the new womens vote, and the vote of the young. Two groups in societies that some would say are the most gullible.

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Karl Marx

The article is full of all manner of interesting tit bits, with links to all kinds of interesting papers, like this:

How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

 

 

So Marx knew what we later would find out in detail, that when women enter politics, the nature of poltics changes. 

Female political thinkers start focusing on what they imagine would be the kind of government the US should have, a socialist one.  This was the same way they answered the question in Germany, and Socialism was the answer in the United States as well.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon

The Fox News article deems to go farther. It starts to link up, for the first time in MSM, all the implications of the womans vote. A discussion that was shut down a long time ago by painting it as just the oppressors protecting their territory. 

Here are a few facts from the article:

• For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
• What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
• Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.

They attempt, and do quite well, at establishing that the constant increase of the state till it breaks is a natural occurance to how they see the power of the state being used in their benifit. 

The major thing that the article doesn’t show is how as a political mass they are oblivious to where their leaders are going to take them eventually and what they outcome will be. A point that can usually be summed up in "it may look the same, but it cant turn out the same, since we are the ones doing it".

however, when one thinks of overburdening taxes, huge government, wasteful policies, and lots of other things, until this fox article, few would have been daring enough to place the blame at the feet of those making the changes.

Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women’s suffrage on per capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling.

Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.

In a decade the expenditure from the citizens to the state doubled, and as the burden increased, their solution was to continually increase the state.

Women’s suffrage also explains much of the federal government’s growth from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as women’s voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level as men’s, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became an increasingly important part of the electorate.

But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women’s share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.

Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.

But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.

Women’s suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the "gender gap" is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.

The one thing the article doesnt do is show us where all this will eventually lead. Given that we are about to elect the most communist of democratic party candidates.

As was done between WWII the womens and youth votes are about to vote in a socialist system that will do all for its constituency.  one only needs to watch FAther Micheal Fleger speaking at Trinity United Church, to see that perhaps the left today isnt that far from the same racism painted as truth and justice in the past. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11×6bMu4Y

 Is it really different when someone else does it?

One only needs to read the leaders of todays feminists, as quoted above, to understand where they are taking us.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

Though one could never actually believe that thats the end result of a constant series of massive state size increases for socialist programs and wealth redistribution.

for the complete article and your own personal take on things, go to:

 Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise