Ann Coulter is more conservative than you! I don't know if you've figured that out by now or perhaps she says exactly what you think. For those of you who don't know what women's suffrage is and immediately think, "Yeah, women's suffrage must be stopped, I'll sign that petition, where's Amnesty International when you need' em(?)," suffrage is the right to vote. Ann Coulter believes that women have mental baggage that should disqualify them from voting (funny, I feel this way about a lot of fellow men) and believes that conservative women would be willing to give up their right to vote if it keeps non-conservative women from voting.
Source material: (quoted from her new book except last paragraph)
Ann Coulter had this to say to the New York Observer:
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and "We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care' and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?"
Update - I just stumbled upon this quote, on the same subject:
I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting, and your Communists will back me up on this, is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
What do you think? Would the country be better off without the female vote?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
If a person is part of this society they deserve to have a say in what the society as a whole does. (Yes, I know societies are not people but governments act as representatives of societies and in that sense societies act.)
By the way, being opposed to women voting is reactionary, not conservative the way I see it. :-)
she's not taken very seriously anymore...
The challenge is to change the system and the way of thinking that big government is able to solve all the problems we create or exist because of the capitalistic enterprise.
I say we keep more of our tax dollars and do away with large group insurance and government hand out. Let's have a 10% tax across the border and eliminate all the waste of government hand outs by taking charge of our lives.
In that case we dismantle IRS = huge savings. Let go of millions of government employees=huge savings. More money to the individual states will give the people a better way to control their own local economy and spending it accordinlgy.
Before we had a king now we have a huge federal government, I see no difference.
A recent poll just stated that over 75% of women under 30 would vote if a woman was running for president.
Nuff said.
No policies. No issues. No principles. No convictions. No belief system.
Just NO TESTICLES!
Besides....it appears to me to that if they want someone to "represent" them, they would be better off with the trial attorney Edwards. He channeled dead babies to win massive cases against OB-Gyn Drs. and hospitals with fake science; His wife said so: and surely he is much more effeminate than Hillary!
It was kind of an unwritten rule that the system was one vote per household, and allowing women to vote was allowing multiple votes per household, which wouldn't be distributed evenly and thus give some candidate an unfair advantage.
And of course, the popular sentiment was that if a woman wasn't married yet, then she hadn't yet the life experience or place in society to have any say in the political process anyhow.
The argument holds more water than one feels comfortable giving it credit for these days.
But in today's world of single moms, career professional women, and even married women who are politically and ideologically independent of their husbands, there is not sufficient grounds to even debate the issue any more.
In any case, the entire issue of who should vote and who shouldn't vote is given exaggerated importance today, simply because politics itself is given exaggerated importance.
Citizens should have the luxury of not feeling such a pressing need to have "their" candidate elected. we should be able to skip the electoral process altogether if we wish, and feel secure in knowledge that no matter who is elected, it won't make a whole lot of difference because they will be strictly limited in what they can do, and under intense, non-stop scrutiny of a watchful Congress, a vigilant media, and a wise judiciary.
Of course, that is a description of some far-out dreamland that was conjured up by aa bunch of Revolutionaries about 230 years ago. That place doesn't exist.
Nuff said.
No policies. No issues. No principles. No convictions. No belief system.
Just NO TESTICLES!
I would like to see this poll, if you would link it, Grateful 1.