Counter

Pageviews last month

Tuesday, 8 September 2026

How Women Lose the Right to Vote

For many years I have pondered the very notion of women voting, and one of the mysteries of this whole topic is whether the right to vote, once having been bestowed upon women by men, could ever be withdrawn. It seems illogical that women themselves could be persuaded to yield suffrage, once having obtained it, but it turns out not be be impossible after all, as we shall soon see. This is true precisely because of an innate difference between the generic male and the generic female: he's much better suited to warfare than she is. 

I offer the case of a country where a movement became active to give women the vote in 1919, even before implementation of the 19th Amendment in the US ensured suffrage for the women there: Afghanistan. 

Yes, Afghanistan. Who would think of THAT country as being ahead of the United States in the area of women's rights? Yet, in the 1920's, it was--at least on paper, and at least in the media. But it was a top-down revolution, and, as these tend to do, it didn't last. 

In 1913, Emir Amanullah Khan took Soraya Tarzi as his third wife, having divorced the first as a teenager and losing the second to death in childbirth. But, unlike every monarch throughout history to precede him on that throne--he himself being the son of his predecessor's second wife--he announced that as of Soraya, he was done taking wives; the Christian notion of monogamy seemed, to him, something that his Islamic nation could adopt to their betterment. Emir Khan proclaimed himself King in 1919, ousted the British Overlords in the Third Anglo-Afghan War, and as the decade of the Roaring Twenties dawned, set about to bring his country into the 20th century--starting by elevating women to a status equal with men. This move, which included appointing his wife as Minister of Education and opening that world to the female majority, was directly contrary to the teachings of Islam. The Qur'an states, in An-Nisa 4:34,
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. But if they return to obedience, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is higher, great."

This top-down revolution was thus doomed from the moment it began, and by the close of the decade Amanullah and Soraya were in exile, never to return home until their respective royal burials in the 1960's. Amanullah couldn't even manage to keep the reformation going in his personal life: although he held on to Soraya and went on to father ten children through her, he lapsed back into polygamy by briefly marrying his first cousin in the dying days of his kingdom. 

The remainder of the century would see Afghanistan endure one government overthrow after another, with women in the forefront politically whenever they were permitted it, and then thrown back under the bus when Islamic doctrine prevailed over Western thought. 

So here is what it comes down to: whenever modern doctrines like the equality of women hold sway over the ruling class, women get the vote; but whenever the core beliefs of the nation at large gain the preeminence, women lose it again. This process has repeated itself in Afghanistan probably more times than in any other country, but it serves as an example of how it could happen anywhere else. In the USA, the process is still on its first cycle at the national level--but it we were to peer closely down to the local level, we would see that the second cycle has already begun to play out. 

I can now envision a movement in which women are taught that their inherent status is one of submission to men, and where they either give up the vote altogether, or only vote as their husbands instruct them. This would be the most peaceful option, in which the female vote is surrendered voluntarily. But should that option fail, men could still win back exclusive suffrage by brute force, womankind being much less of a match for mankind militarily, as they are politically. 

And in a nation whose women only ever vote in accordance with their husbands' wishes, there is actually no need to abolish female suffrage, in order to obtain an equivalent result. 

8 comments:

  1. In my family it is my wife and daughter that are most vocal that women should not be able to vote. That is based on a reasoned appraisal of what they see happening rather than any Biblical mandate.

    Grace and peace

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the Extreme Left take over, nobody will vote. But do people really prefer fantasizing about denying women the right to vote...or strategizing about recruiting women to vote against the Extreme Left? MAHA Moms elected Trump. He's disappointed them, but at least we know that they do not "vote blue no matter who."

    I'd like to see more posts about how conservatives are encouraging women. Living on the East Coast among people who don't consider anything that goes on west of Atlanta to be "living," I see benefits in inverse population growth, but if I wanted grandchildren I'd want my daughter to see true stories of how employers are counting years of full-time motherhood as management experience when children go to school and mothers go back to work.

    PK https://priscillaking.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't know anything about that. My wife hasn't earned any taxable income since 1988, and it wasn't enough to qualify her for Social Security then, or now. Everything she contributed to the system has long since been passed on to somebody else.

      Delete
    2. It's often much easier to get a comment past Google's gateways as an anonymous one, so I understand why that's often done. But it is good to keep straight who is saying what, so thanks for identifying yourself at the bottom there, Priscilla. To respond:
      Actually I very much doubt that the hard left would put an end to all elections. Voting has become somewhat hard-wired into the human psyche by now: witness the Duma elections that just concluded in Russia: Despite constant bombardment by the Ukrainian non-Air Force, despite petrol shortages making it difficult to reach the polls, despite the fact that many of the ballots were already filled in for the United Russia Party, despite armed guards barging into the voting booths to check on how people were filling out their ballots that hadn't already been marked---despite all that, it was somehow very important to the Russian government that this charade be maintained.

      Delete
  3. It's interesting to remember that in 2024, Kamala Harris spent a lot of money on TV ads to persuade women to deceitfully vote against their husbands' wishes. I doubt there was any measurable return on that investment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk

    ReplyDelete
  4. The right to vote was not "bestowed upon women"; it was won by women's long and acrimonious struggle. What I don't understand is why "conservatives" would rather even THINK about reverting to those years of acrimony, incidentally alienating women who currently vote and losing their own influence...instead of supporting women's serious concerns, such as hatecrimes against us, and WINNING THE MAHA MOMS' VOTE.

    The MAHA Moms elected Trump. They're swing voters; most voted for Kennedy, not Trump, because regardless of his larger political ideas Kennedy has shown concern with restoring people's right to a chance to be healthy. Most of them think "conservatives" hate women and don't want women to have civil rights. Why is any "conservative" letting the Left manipulate them into saying things that sound even faintly reminiscent of that stereotype? Why aren't "conservatives" pursuing the White female vote? Do "conservatives" not WANT to win elections?

    My best guess is that people who bash "women" think they're being funny. They want to laugh their way into the next Blue Wave?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, Priscilla, once again we disagree. You believe that women are capable of winning the vote by fighting for it; when I look at Afghanistan, I don't see that happening. Afghan women received the right to vote equal to men around 1920, under King Amanullah Khan, only to lose it by the end of the decade; again in 1964 under King Mohammad Zahir Shah, before losing it under the Soviet occupation of the 1980s, and a third time in 2004 when the US-led invasion ousted the Taliban, only to lose it yet again when the Taliban returned to power in 2021. Had women attained this power each time by their own efforts, how can you explain that they kept losing it--did they just get comfortable and stop struggling for it? Were they somehow tricked into voting for someone who promised to take back their suffrage?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Being a white man and all, I temporarily forgot about a whole class of woman that HAS gone through a complete suffrage cycle in the Southern States: first from being unable to vote along with almost all the other American women, then receiving suffrage along with them under the 19th Amendment, only to lose it again along with almost all the other non-white Southerners under Jim Crow, the regaining it in the Civil Rights era. And the fact that a third of non-white Southern women don't even bother to vote in any given election--even though they still have that right--shows the potential that it could be taken away from them again.

    ReplyDelete

One comment per viewer, please--unless participating in a dialogue.