You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
Well yeah, women have always wielded varying degrees of influence in the background since Nefertari and Jezebel. I'm not disputing that, but what I did say was that the first time women as a bloc (instead of individual queens and princesses) tried to make a major powergrab, in the supposedly egalitarian and arch-progressive environment of the French Revolution no less, they got shut down fast.
That they were forced aside from the mainstream of politics still had no bearing on the Jacobin men carrying out radical programmes. Clearly, women can help, but they aren't necessarily a decisive factor in the leftward drift of western men over the past two centuries.
For what it's worth, I actually agree that strengthening the family unit at the expense of the state is highly preferable compared to the opposite, and that a fair tally will show that women's suffrage opened the gates for the destructive social transformation of the West that got rolling in earnest just a few decades later.
But, that is one genie that's clearly not going back into the bottle, not without a huge and probably violent reactionary wave that I don't foresee on the horizon anytime soon. And I consider it an outgrowth of the Enlightenment-born revival of popular democracy in general as a good idea - 'one man, one vote' took less than a century to turn into 'one person, one vote' after all - since the fall of ancient Athens, which definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon without a hell of a lot of violence.
So, I'll support conservative female forces like Lewis (and, in the past, figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Whitehouse) as a matter of pragmatism these days. Advocating a full repeal of the female franchise is a non-starter and wouldn't solve the huge problem of leftism-addled males running around anyway.
You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
Well yeah, women have always wielded varying degrees of influence in the background since Nefertari and Jezebel. I'm not disputing that, but what I did say was that the first time women as a bloc (instead of individual queens and princesses) tried to make a major powergrab, in the supposedly egalitarian and arch-progressive environment of the French Revolution no less, they got shut down fast.
That they were forced aside from the mainstream of politics still had no bearing on the Jacobin men carrying out radical programmes. Clearly, women can help, but they aren't necessarily a decisive factor in the leftward drift of western men over the past two centuries.
For what it's worth, I actually agree that strengthening the family unit at the expense of the state is highly preferable compared to the opposite, and that a fair tally will show that women's suffrage opened the gates for the destructive social transformation of the West that got rolling in earnest just a few decades later.
But, that is one genie that's clearly not going back into the bottle, not without a huge and probably violent reactionary wave that I don't foresee on the horizon anytime soon. And I consider it an outgrowth of the Enlightenment-born revival of popular democracy in general as a good idea - 'one man, one vote' took less than a century to turn into 'one person, one vote' after all - since the fall of ancient Athens, which definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon without a hell of a lot of violence.
So, I'll support conservative female forces like Lewis (and, in the past, figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Whitehouse) as a matter of pragmatism these days. Advocating a full repeal of the female franchise is a non-starter and wouldn't solve the huge problem of leftism-addled males running around anyway.