BTW I never thought that the decision to let women vote would end up being the death knell for liberty in this country... (haha ok I'm kidding...sorta...)
Actually, it's been obvious to me for some time ... ever since I became old and tired enough for what Warren Farrell calls the "hormone-induced fog" that colors most men's view of women to begin to dissipate a little, so I could begin to see clearly how women think and act.
Women want to be taken care of; it's natural and genetic. And once women began to transfer this expectation from the imperfect men in their lives to the government -- which, being far away and impersonal, can be imagined to be perfect (especially if you're good at deluding yourself, which cleary many women are -- cf. the euphemism "pro-choice") -- there was simply no way the State could not become all-powerful. Women will not settle for anything less.
In 1995 I saw a PBS special on the 75th anniversary of the 19th Amendment (that "gave" women the vote in national elections). The narrative mentioned that among the objections to female suffrage was the prediction that they would enact alcohol prohibition. ... No mention was made of the fact that that was exactly what happened. (Yes, the 18th Amendment preceded the 19th, but it was part of the same event, like the 16th & 17th). I had to laugh; it was politically incorrect to notice, so it simply wasn't. I've found that women are very good at not seeing what they don't wish to acknowledge. They really won't see it; and in this world, their maternal and sexual power allows them to get away with it -- for a while at least.
It's been said many times: the primary value for male consciousness is freedom; the primary value for female consciousness is security. The reasons for this are obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think. Once women began directly taking part in the political process, society was profoundly changed. And, in my view, socialism became inevitable.
It's not often remembered now (another politically-incorrect fact, thus suppressed) that among opponents of female suffrage were many women, who predicted that it would destroy the family. Which has also happened.
The family is the only human institution capable of resisting and restraining the State's greed for ultimate power. Thus those who live from and through the State -- politicians and their ilk -- naturally wish to destroy the family, thus reducing society to a collection of atomized individuals, who can be divided into mutually-hostile groups and then easily ruled.
I've wondered if perhaps the presence of a significant number of women in the Ron Paul Revolution might herald the beginning of a real "sea-change" in human consciousness, wherein women might (a) learn to think and (b) begin to understand that the responsibility that freedom requires, though sometimes painful, is worth the cost.
Maybe the family really is evolutionarily dead, and we're going on to a new form of sexual and social order based entirely on individuals alone. But that can be a free society only if women begin to value freedom as much as men do, and become willing to pay the price of freedom as much as men are. However, the trend for the last century has been in the opposite direction: men becoming more like women, more shallow and emotional, more dependent, less interested in freedom.
