Right-Wing Plot To Prevent Women From Voting Advances

Colour me shocked: Religious zealots want to control reproductive rights and norms AND also control your children's education to endoctrinate them to their religion even more, for the sake of power and money. It's almost like history has shown this is always the case with religion, across the world. Wow, who would have thought. Craaazy.
- If things continue like this, one day the United States will be the Christian version of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
- I say if a government is okay supporting and committing genocide live, why people think they are not going to do the same for its own people?

If you won't let me vote, then you will hear me scream 🤷🏿‍♀️

The fact that killing Roe v Wade didn't drive every woman in this nation to CRUSH Republicans in this last election shows that we are in a downward spiral with no end in sight.
Imagine someone taking a human right from you and then you continue to support them to take more rights away from you.
Yeah. We're fucked.
- Plenty of women are just as happy removing their own rights as men are because of religious nonsense.
  Also add in "that leopard would never eat my face!" too for good measure.
  
  "Everyone wanted it left up to the states!" was a female coworker's favorite line after Roe was overturned. No, Republicans just wanted it left up to the states to pave the way for a national ban. This was coming from a woman that has previously had at least one abortion and is proudly child free.
- Fox News literally got up on air and told women maybe they shouldn't be voting since they leaned toward Biden last time and that was such a "disaster" compared to whatever the fuck this nightmare is.
  Then they told a female host "good job you get a cookie now" or some shit when they suggested we should execute people for daring to defy Trump.
  Made me sick to my stomach.
  But of course, zero repercussions, zero pushback.
  
  Any woman or minority on Fox News deserves any humiliating treatment they get.
- The election was completely compromised and so are all the numbers. Watching our country eat each other alive when we literally did NOT vote for this is the craziest experience of my life.
  
  Part of the problem is we have let, Congress, gerrymander everything to hell instead of rioting about it years ago
  
  We need to start screaming that the 2024 election was rigged. We ALL know it. Stop revering this "peaceful transfer of power" bullshit, that isn’t more important than demanding that our Democratic Elections be honored.
  HitlerPig is going to win his 3rd term with 98% of the vote, and declare that the voters have effectively ended the 22nd Amendment, and the Dems will go along with it.
  
  I have this worry as well. Bullet ballots are my main concern, I think that could have been the play this time around. You got other evidence?
- if you didn't know, Roe of Roe v Wade was against the ruling and spent her time advocating against it
  
  The anti choice crowd took a vulnerable woman and gave her an income in order to make her a poster child. She was exploited.
  And who cares if she changed her mind later? Other women still deserve reproductive rights.

This is part of the mental bulletpoints I use to support the statement that it is over, these are just the aganol gasps of an already dead ideal. They've tried for many election cycles to disenfranchise voters. Voting roll purges, lack of voting locations, obstacles to voting, etc..
People are still acting like the Judicial will help things, but they overturned Roe v Wade, promoted presidential immunity, said it was OK for a Constitutionally unqualified candidate hold office.
Maybe the Legislature will help things, they couldn't even convict trump on two obvious impeachments, in addition to the rest of their crap. Congress is broken, and has been for awhile.
OK, so at least the voters can help things. LOL, look at who keeps getting elected, reelected, on both parties. Voters suck balls, and just to be sure voters don't get their voices heard, see my first paragraph.
- I'll go a step further. I don't believe the 2024 election was free and fair. Trump has mentioned multiple times about how he won PA because Musk knew how those vote counting computers worked. Plus, I've read that it's almost statistically impossible for a candidate to win all 7 swing states but less than 50% of the popular vote. We know there was massive voter disenfranchisement in the year or so leasing up to the election, I think this election was stolen.
  
  I don't think he added votes, I think votes didn't get counted

Right-wing and conservative women, please explain yourselves. 🙈
- They see themselves as being special and having a sense of power within the family-unit -- The Queen of the Castle if you will. But out in the real world they're not special and are treated just like any other person. Which goes hand in hand with religious indoctrination and the sense of moral superiority that comes with it. They're a good mom/wife after all. While those other, feminist women are just whores. Running around, spreading their legs for everyone and getting abortions every other week.
  They're just brainwashed and protecting their ill-conceived position of "power".
  
  Also called internalized misogyny.
  
  That is an awful lot of words to say 'they're fuckin' morons'.
- You're going to have to defer to their men for permission for them to speak.
- This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn't draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn't show that).
  To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I've talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don't have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).
  There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.
  TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.
  P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I've heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
  
  In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
  Just for clarification, this part has been answered in other articles discussing this subject. Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands' name (which happens 99.9% of the time) because their birth certificate would still have their maiden name. Since the voting rolls contain their married name and not their maiden name, the names wouldn't match which would be grounds for removal from rolls. This would be made worse for those women who were married recently, as it's more likely that even more documentation such as a drivers' license would also still contain their maiden name and would therefore not be considered acceptable proof.
  Women would have to provide additional documentation (such as a marriage license), but it's expected that this alone would cause some women to consider it not worth the hassle and therefore not bother voting.
  P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
  Sadly, there are women who openly embrace this line of thinking. Particularly those who were raised in ultra-religious households where women being subservient to men in all matters is the norm, and have no problems forcing those views on the secular women that they view as "whores". Mostly, it's a subconscious way of lashing out against the fact that they themselves have been oppressed for their whole lives and therefore feel better being the oppressor instead of the oppressed. But they are out there.
  
  I appreciate you taking the time to do it. Conservative women confuse me so much.
- We should ignore them, since they're so proud about taking others voices and choices away.
- Father will vote in my interests.
- "This is not what I voted for"
  
  “That’s just silly, why would I vote when my husband votes!” Blah blah blah, something in the Bible, toxic tradwife bullshit etc
  
  💀 lol while actively pushing politics that erode their rights away

I am disappointed this article resorts to paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thiel's essay rather than the original essay directly. Journalism! The paraphrase makes him sound like he's intentionally being overtly misognyistic. In the original essay, he provocatively blames women's suffrage for making it hard to get libertarian policies passed, and and afterward clarifies he obviously doesn't mean women's suffrage should be revoked.
Yeah, I too think that women's suffrage resulted in different policies being voted in than would have otherwise. Similarly, if white men couldn't vote, we'd see a lot of advances I'd like -- but I don't want anyone disenfranchised.
This article just says: "In 2009, Thiel said libertarianism would have more sway if only men voted. Also, Trump is requiring extra documentation in order to vote, disenfranchising many voters." It does not explain what the plot in the headline is, or how Trump's XO impacts women in particular.
Thiel may or may not be a misogynist (I have no idea), but can we at least keep our criticisms grounded in reality please?
- This article is not wrong for not supporting its premise. It is wrong for giving this blow hard a platform. The longer we listen to what these pigs say the less time we have to talk about what is really going on.
  He is most definitely misogynist, but that is not the worst of his his sins. He is the literal definition of wealth inequality and the primary reason we are at the crossroads we are.
  He is an escapist that cares more about fantasy technologies than realities of policy that will solve our problems. Libertarians are just another astroturf for Neo Feudalism.
  Back to the article, yeah it was severely lacking. It fails to even approach its title. I think it is a great place to start a conversation though. While I am not sure I can spin a direct attack on women's voting rights, there is something much worse going on.
  Most gains from DEI were not minorities, but women. This assault on DEI is really a thinly veiled assault on women. This combined with braindead policies like not considering sex, gender, race in medical research makes it clear women stand the most to lose in all this.
  There is also the psychological effect of putting a known and unrepentant sexual assaulter in the White House. I imagine keeping women disengaged is very important for the conservative movement and boy have they perfected turning women off.
  Taking away fundamental reproductive rights of women and robbing their right of redress through manipulating the courts is just the start. Their current push for voter ID will likely disenfranchise millions of women, but I am not sure that is the smoking gun.
  I think the more we look for that moment or sign that this administration is anti-women is the more we continue to ignore it has always been anti-women. That is the point or feature so to speak. The unspoken truth of man up and woman down.
  
  See, that's a much more interesting take, with actual evidence. The article should have been about that. As is, the article is purely baseless fearmongering, and we don't need that. If you're going to write about how Trump is a threat to women, use the waterfall of evidence available for that.
- You're right but in my opinion the media is massivley sugarcoating Thiel. His ties to white nationalists and repeated hinting about how we'd be so much better off without democracy would be treated as far more alarming if it were coming from a prominent Democrat.
  Thiel has made it as a CEO because he's able to (barely) maintain a public persona that hides his true extremism. But it's so clearly there beneath the surface. Maybe he didn't quite outright say he was against women having the right to vote, but we can guess how he feels inside at this point.
  
  Great, so there's no need to make up garbage takes on Thiel, since there's plenty of legitimate, evidence-supported takes on him they could have gone with.
  Any article which makes stuff up to support the cause is bad for the cause.
- Since journalism! Here is his take quoted directly
  [On the failure of libertarian politics]
  The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
  And his ""clarification"" of the obvious misogynism in the original.
  It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.
  Emphasis mine. You're to telling me, that even in the beginning questioning the notion of womens suffrage isn't inherently misogynistic. And then follows that up with "nono we shouldn't disenfranchise, BUT I don't believe in democracy anyway" for his retort. I would love to live in your alternate reality where you can defend Thiel to begin with.. I thought MLs want to eat the rich.
  
  Indeed, I have no love for Thiel. I just object to mischaracterization of my enemies; it makes it easier to criticize us.
  I have read and reread those quotes three times. Where is he questioning the notion of women's suffrage?
- It's a pretty safe bet that anything terrible you hear about Theil is probably true, except that it is probably even worse than you heard.
  
  Haha, fair enough. I just think it's bad journalism to play so loose.
- if white men couldn’t vote, we’d see a lot of advances I’d like – but I don’t want anyone disenfranchised.
  hang on, hang on, let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here.

The Seth Meyers clip from this article is from 2016
- So weird seeing him in a suit.

Sounds crazy, right?
No, not in the slightest. They will try anything and everything to get what they want, and usually succeed because there aren't any actual safeguards in place.