September 30, 2001

9:11 AM

Kansas state senator decries women's suffragein a shocking speech given at a League of Women Voters luncheon. "We have a society that does tear families apart," Sen. Kay O'Connor said. "I think the 19th Amendment, while it's not an evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don't approve of."
posted by MegoSteve (46 comments total)

then why the hell did she run for office?

nothing like good ole-fashioned hypocrisy
posted by billder at 9:16 AM on September 30, 2001

And, in a separate development, Senator Strom Thurmond says, "I ain't too crazy about the 13th Amendment either."
posted by MAYORBOB at 9:16 AM on September 30, 2001

from the article:
"She says she votes and believes women should have the right to cast their ballot. But, she adds, if men were doing their job of taking care of women and children, women wouldn't be required to vote."

That's one strange belief system you got there, Mrs. O'Connor.
posted by mathowie at 9:17 AM on September 30, 2001

Let's see...

If I were a woman, and I didn't think women should be involved in politics... why yes! I believe becoming a politician would be a logical choice!

This woman is some strange form of hypocrite...
posted by whatnotever at 9:21 AM on September 30, 2001

"Local Politician in 'Clueless Fuckwit' Shocker: Headlines at 11"
posted by holgate at 9:36 AM on September 30, 2001

Mrs O'Connor is a gem. Very funny.
posted by Atom Heart Mother at 9:45 AM on September 30, 2001

That's so odd, considering the last time Kansas was in the news was for their progressive stance on education.

I'm from Nebraska and we just LOVE having Kansas as a neighbor. No one makes fun of us anymore.
posted by RavinDave at 10:16 AM on September 30, 2001

Thanks Dave, I was just looking for that.

From Ms. O'Connor's bio:

ISSUES OF CONCERN:

School Choice
Downsize Government
Lower Taxes
Second Amendment Rights
Family Values
posted by bjgeiger at 10:24 AM on September 30, 2001

Mrs O'Connor is a gem. Very funny.

But not unique. I saw this on another board a few days ago and a few Kansans chimed in to explain that this view is popular among women in certain areas. Ironically, women that probably voted for her.

Her complaints are more centered on independent women and she's more of less raging against anything that resembles feminism. Voting is just one of the many things she takes issue with.
posted by skallas at 10:27 AM on September 30, 2001

I wonder if she voted for herself in the election?
posted by rift2001 at 10:41 AM on September 30, 2001

Yet another example of why democracy only really works well with an informed electorate.
posted by rushmc at 10:53 AM on September 30, 2001

Seems to be an epidemic. Or at the very least, an attempt at justifying this life philosophy.
posted by lesingesavant at 11:22 AM on September 30, 2001

"But, she adds, if men were doing their job of taking care of women and children, women wouldn't be required to vote."

Perhaps she should brush up on sufferage. Women aren't required to vote. That's why in any given election, about 50% don't even bother. Of corse, neither does anyone else.
posted by kfury at 11:35 AM on September 30, 2001

The interesting thing about O'Connor's belief system is that it isn't all that uncommon. It was a very popular argument by both men and women arguing against suffrage in the early 1900s. And in fact, it's the basis of the anti-feminist movement of the 1970s - women like Phyllis Schlaffly who fought against passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and who were probably instrumental in blocking it. They believed (and still do) that women are not equal to men in some areas, and surpass men in others; that women should be stay at home and raise children; and instead of holding political office or power themselves, should use their natures to influence men to do what's best for the family, and by extension, the nation. They believe that giving women the right to vote was the beginning of the downward spiral in the status of women in our society.

Maybe it sound pretty crazy; but just for fun, I suggest reading Phyllis Schlaffly. She makes it sound so reasonable. A decent analogy can be found in some of the people who demonstrate against the World Bank and IMF involvement in some third world countries, who argue that the role of women in what used to be matriarchal societies is being undermined by increased democritization of government and globalization of the economy. Some argue that the attempt to make everyone equal is actually reducing women's power in those societies, because in some ways they held more power than the men. Schlaffly and the anti-feminists argued that that was true in 20th century American society, as well; they didn't want an amendment passed that made women equal, because they argued that women were actually superior.
posted by jennaratrix at 11:37 AM on September 30, 2001

And I bet Senator O'Connor would be one of the first to characterize a response to 9-11 as a "crusade". Could everyone who wants a return to the 12th century just file out into the Virtual Medieval Battlefield and let the rest of us get on with the 21st century?
posted by aflakete at 12:10 PM on September 30, 2001

Actually let me frame this a little differently(devil's advocate so to speak)....if instead of seeing the individual as the smallest unit of society we see an individual FAMILY as a self-contained unit this makes some sense. ...husband, wife and children making up the unit of ONE. By default this unit would carry the name of the father, who also had the priviledge of voting and the burden of protection and provision, while management of household resourses and childrearing would be overseen by the wife. Children would be brought up apprenticing the skills of their parents and other adults around them......indeed the greater community at large, in this mindset, would be quite a bit more interdependent and less independent (and DEFINITELY less self-sufficient in that sense of the term)....


Our society in contrast(I speak of Americans here) is so individualistic I doubt there is room to go any further on the scale. Father, Mother, and each young person each has his or her life and agenda for each day, barely checking in with one another much less having a meal with one another....the idea of doing much of anything as a unit must seem hopelessly old-fashioned if not overly inconvenient.........
posted by bunnyfire at 12:48 PM on September 30, 2001

if instead of seeing the individual as the smallest unit of society we see an individual FAMILY as a self-contained unit this makes some sense. ...husband, wife and children making up the unit of ONE. By default this unit would carry the name of the father who also had the priviledge of voting and the burden of protection and provision[snip]

No, it doesn't make sense, bunny. Not everyone fits neatly into the scenario you described. Where do you fit single women with no children into this? Where do you go with other people who don't fit?

Individual freedom is a good thing. If a woman chooses to live the life you describe in your first paragraph, that's great. However, inflicting that one option on the women (and men, for that matter) that don't want to live like that is vastly unfair and narrowminded.
posted by MegoSteve at 1:48 PM on September 30, 2001

the idea of doing much of anything as a unit must seem hopelessly old-fashioned if not overly inconvenient.........

There have always been problems with this line of argument, however. I'll just point out a couple from my own area of expertise, nineteenth-century Britain:

1. Many women don't get married. This has always been the case, even prior to "women's lib," and involves a number of factors, including education, social class--particularly when a dowry or "settlement" system is in operation--, religion, the number of siblings, and, for that matter, parental belief systems. And, of course, often all or some of these things working in tandem. (For example, the father of late-Victorian don Mark Pattison--now known today as the probable model for Mr. Casaubon in Middlemarch--forbade his daughters to marry, in large part because of class prejudice.) Many families singled out one daughter to serve as a "nurse" to the parents in their old age, which meant that she herself would have no one to take care of her when they died --unless she were "lucky" enough to have a sibling willing to take her in, which was not always the case. Women from poor or lower middle-class families who could bring no money or property to a marriage might also be forced to remain single. These problems meant that, ironically, sometimes even conservative supporters of "women's mission" wound up arguing that women needed better educational and employment opportunities.

If a woman cannot or, for whatever reason, will not get married, then she cannot be represented by a convenient male.

2. To borrow a line from one regular contributor to the Tory Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Margaret Oliphant: women have always worked. The "women should stay home and take care of the kids" argument, while nice, has never been practical once one reaches what we now call the blue-collar workers. Working-class women often had to hold down full-time jobs, in the home if they were lucky (doing piece-work, for example), but also in mines, factories, laundries, and so forth. Their kids? They were out working too, at least until the state instituted compulsory education around the last third of the century or so. Being able to "keep" a wife was certainly a sign of the husband's financial status, but quite a few middle-class families survived on the wife's work: the aforementioned Mrs. Oliphant, for example, supported her husband and their children by her writing. (Similarly, George Eliot maintained G. H. Lewes' separated wife and their children out of her earnings.) Presumably, if this family was a "unit," Mrs. Oliphant should have had the vote, and not her husband!

I'd also add, switching to today, that the husband=primary wage earner no longer holds true for many families. My mother, an administrator, has been the primary wage earner in the family for many years; my father's career (professor) has more cachet, but hers has more cash. And I have colleagues who, for one reason or another, are in similar situations. One could argue that in these cases, the father ought to stay home!

(I'd add that my parents took turns: my mother stayed home until my sister and I went back to school--although she herself was working on a second master's degree the entire time--and my father worked; then, my mother went back to work, and my father rearranged his teaching schedule to take care of us. Needless to say, this arrangement itself depended on their respective professions, and would not be available to everyone. Still, I never understood what all the fuss was about distributing child-raising tasks equally--since my parents did it long before it was trendy :) )
posted by thomas j wise at 1:52 PM on September 30, 2001

Similarly, George Eliot maintained G. H. Lewes' separated wife and their children out of her earnings.

Now that is a strange arrangement. For real? How did the wife feel about being kept by her husband's girlfriend (if the word "girlfriend" could ever be appropriate to George Eliot)?
posted by rodii at 2:48 PM on September 30, 2001

Now that is a strange arrangement. For real? How did the wife feel about being kept by her husband's girlfriend (if the word "girlfriend" could ever be appropriate to George Eliot)?

Actually, the entire relationship appears to have been quite amenable; Eliot was quite fond of Lewes' children, and she doesn't appear to have had anything against the wife. But then, the whole situation was odd: the reason that Lewes couldn't get a divorce in the first place, of course, was that he was perfectly aware that some of the kids had been fathered by another man (and thus was held to have countenanced the adultery). Just one of those reminders that "difficult to get a divorce" does not equal "marriage will remain stable." At least Eliot and Lewes were supporting the sort-of ex. There were several second- and third-rank women writers from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries whose professional careers stemmed, in large part, from collapsed marriages in which the absent husband contributed nothing to their support (e.g., Charlotte Smith, Felicia Hemans, Charlotte Elizabeth [Tonna], Anna Jameson).
posted by thomas j wise at 3:00 PM on September 30, 2001

...if instead of seeing the individual as the smallest unit of society we see an individual FAMILY as a self-contained unit this makes some sense...

Yes! By all means! Let us define humanity in terms of BREEDING UNITS, and then let us establish production quotas and penalties for not meeting same. Let's reduce human beings not only to functional cogs (which has pretty much been accomplished for the majority) but let's erase their very identity, defining them solely in terms of their group memberships. No one exists except in its relations to others.

That's pretty sick, bunny, quite worthy of the devil for whom you seek to speak.
posted by rushmc at 4:31 PM on September 30, 2001

erm.. The way I see things, no one -does- exist except in terms of their relationships to others. If no one knows you exist, do you still actually exist? Stupid question, I know, but honestly.

Has anyone else noticed that "modern" societies seek always to destroy the family in order to reach their ends - which are usually to reduce people to -less- than even cogs? Communism, in all its forms, has failed because it has tried to eliminate the family - no marriage, in some cases, or encouraging children to turn on their parents. It doesn't work.

No matter how we might try, 2+2 will always equal 4. We can sometimes trick ourselves into believing that it equals 5, but that doesn't make it true.

Maybe none of this made sense, and you can flame me all you like for being (*gasp*) so conservative. It's just my two cents, after all.
posted by po at 4:58 PM on September 30, 2001

bunnyfire, nice comments. I respect them. It's a shame to see that so many people... (it seems) hold the family unit in contempt.

In response to the above comments: well, duh, I think bunnyfire assumed exceptions for the single woman.

For those of you who cried out "hypocrisy", perhaps you didn't read the entire article.

O'Connor, one of the Legislature's most conservative members, has said she was forced into the workplace because of her ailing daughter's medical bills.

Perhaps much of her dislike of the 19th Amendment stems from the modern de-emphasis of family. Fa-mi-ly.

Come on guys, respect her perspective. Christian conservatives aren't out to oppress women. They're advocating what they think brings peace, order, and happiness to our lives: adherence to the Biblical family unit.

You don't have to agree, but at least don't be bigoted in your own views.
posted by aaronshaf at 5:06 PM on September 30, 2001

There's a difference between respecting the stability that generally comes from the family unit and turning it into an object of worship, especially when the veneration extends from an idealised conception of family life that never really existed. (I remember reading about the number of prostitutes in 19th-c London, which smacks down any sense of Victorian values.) It's that kind of thinking that leads well-meaning people to advise spouses to stay in abusive and dysfunctional relationships "for the good for the children".

(So, a bit less of the "our", and more of the "their", aaronshaf?)

"The 19th Amendment is around because men weren't doing their jobs, and I think that's sad."

Actually, that's right in a rather skewed sense: women's suffrage was pretty much made inevitable in many countries because men "weren't doing their jobs" for a fair part of the previous decade. They were absent fighting in Europe, and the women took their place in the fields and the factories.
posted by holgate at 5:20 PM on September 30, 2001

Before all of you get your knickers in a knot, I am married, I work, and I vote. I am also a conservative born again Christian.
Surely we can look at this from all angles without coughing up a hairball?
posted by bunnyfire at 5:34 PM on September 30, 2001

OT: Am I the only one who finds it freakin' hilarious that the older/newer thread links at the bottom of this page include a link to "This is definately a fine cock..."? I mean, that's just fantastic! :)
posted by hincandenza at 6:13 PM on September 30, 2001

And some of us feel a wee bit anxious when people yell "they're out to destroy the family!" If only because Protestants of various sorts spent the entire nineteenth century arguing that the Roman Catholic Church was out to do exactly that. Too often this kind of discourse is mere boilerplate. (Actually, the overlap between current anti-gay rhetoric and 19th- to early-20th century anti-Catholic rhetoric is so astonishing that I've been waiting for some historian to investigate why the rhetoric "moved." Catholics as anti-family, pro-promiscuity, moral relativists, narcissists and/or emotionally stunted, materialists, incapable of happiness...the whole shebang. It certainly gives one pause when listening to people like the late Cardinal Winning.)
posted by thomas j wise at 6:27 PM on September 30, 2001

Communism, in all its forms, has failed because it has tried to eliminate the family - no marriage, in some cases

Could you elaborate on this? I don't know any regimes that have tried to do away with marriage.
posted by rodii at 6:58 PM on September 30, 2001

Seriously, folks: "This is definately a fine cock..."!
Why am I the only one laughing hysterically at this! I mean- geez!
posted by hincandenza at 8:49 PM on September 30, 2001

But, you know something? What I picked up on was her statement that we are a society that doesn't value family. And I tend to agree with that, to the extent that certain government conditions have contributed to the breakdown of the secure family unit. Case-in-point: welfare, or rather, the conditions imposed on those who are beneficiaries of welfare. Welfare is seen as support for single moms, not for couples with children. Because of the way welfare works, it makes more sense for couples to remain unmarried in order to reap the best benefit for their children. (I am talking here about reciepents who use welfare legitmately, not the scammers.) Over time, this leads to a breakdown of a secure family unit in which one partner feels demoralized by the fact that he/she can't legally contribute to the household and is seen as a non-entity or a negative element by the government. And this, naturally, leads to a whole host of other psychological and social conditions.
Also, the government's stubborn refusal to create a national child care network for working parents is more evidence of the fact that certain government policies undermine the family unit, whatever that unit is (I, myself, am a product of an unconventional family unit and therefore would presume to use the term "nuclear" and all that it implies). A national child care initiative would allow both parents to work and enjoy a better quality of life. I know that my own parents spent the equivalent of a one year's college tuition on childcare for my younger sibs. Its a lot of money and it makes having a second income seem almost worthless, if it werent for the benefits that come with having a job.
posted by CraftyHotMelt at 9:29 PM on September 30, 2001

Could you elaborate on this? I don't know any regimes that have tried to do away with marriage.

I can't back it up with sources at the moment, but...

Khmer Rouge.

And, though not really communism, Hitler's "breeding programs."

Those are the two most prominent examples that spring to mind.
posted by po at 12:51 AM on October 1, 2001

The idea that family is important and should be valued by people, institutions, and government alike doesn't bother me.

But that's often not what people are saying when they talk about "valuing the family" Instead, they're saying "all families need to look like a carbon copy of my own personal view of what a family should look like - if it doesn't meet a certain standard, it's not a family."

When I eventually find a life partner and adopt children, they will be my family. But you don't have to be talking about families with same-sex parents in order to find people who think it's not a family. The beauty of O'Connor's views is that they take the idea to the most extreme level - that even a family where the woman has more earning power or political voice than the man is not fit to be called a proper family - it's dysfunctional, in their view.
posted by Chanther at 1:21 AM on October 1, 2001

if instead of seeing the individual as the smallest unit of society we see an individual FAMILY as a self-contained unit this makes some sense. ...husband, wife and children making up the unit of ONE.
(bunnyfire)

Er, this is exactly what happened in the 30's with Salazar and, I assume, Franco and Mussolini. Only "family chiefs" (literal translation on purpose)could vote. A woman could be a "family chief" only if she was a widow.

It was called fascism and wasn't a great success.

Also, surely women who agree with their husbands and give them total control should use that extra little vote of theirs to bolster the family chief's astute choice. Perhaps husbands could stand by with a friendly electric cattle prod to make sure the little women put their cross in the right box.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:55 AM on October 1, 2001

You know, we Americans do this every year..... we let Senator So-and-So or Representative Ditwad represent us in Washington....he or she votes for us on all kinds of bills...does that make us powerless or disenfranchised? Hmmmm.......

Au contraire- there are lobbyists, people write letters or see their representative in person, etc. If the rep turns out to be a real meathead he is voted out.

And if a woman has any brains she picks a husband very carefully! Unfortunately most give it about as much thought as the majority do when they choose a congressman.............

thank God for woman's suffrage...(what! you thought I was AGAINST it?!!!!!!!)
posted by bunnyfire at 2:54 AM on October 1, 2001

Actually, if I remember correctly, the success of women's suffrage was actually associated with the dereliction of duty on part of husbands -- which is why prohibition was passed about the same time. Anti-alcohol and Pro-women's vote were linked -- it usually was the same women in one movement promoting both. The argument was that under the current laws, a wife and any property she brought into the marriage became the property of the husband, and there was nothing she could do to prevent her husband from drinking it all away. Some suffragists of the time made the argument that if the men were behaving as they should, women wouldn't have to secure personal rights to protect themselves against male misbehavior.

But then, so what? Those are arguments from 100 years ago. I am personally tired of arguments blaming all sorts of things for the dissolution of marriage and family: public tolerance of gays, women in the workforce (which they always have been, as noted -- it's just now they can be in positions of power), blue jeans, what have you -- it seems pretty evident to me: what's undermining family and marriage is divorce. Well, duh.
posted by meep at 3:13 AM on October 1, 2001

thank God for woman's suffrage...(what! you thought I was AGAINST it?!!!!!!!)
No, bunnyfire, of course not. It's just that, since women aren't forced to vote - in Australia or Belgium the issue would have been more pertinent - I fail to see what keeps a woman, or a man, from choosing not to vote, say because they believe their husband or wife should represent the whole family. Or their 18 year old daughter or son.

It just seems insulting that a man can somehow represent a family, a true contradiction. In Latin countries, for instance, it's the wives who tell the husbands how to vote. Who cares? It's a good system. Let's not mess with it.

Apathy is more of a problem, for instance. And even this is highly debatable.
And I'm sorry if I seemed to be disparaging your views. For what it's worth I find them brave and provocative and this is why I stated mine.

And if a woman has any brains she picks a husband very carefully! Unfortunately most give it about as much thought as the majority do when they choose a congressman.............

This is much more interesting. As if men had any brains and picked their wives carefully. I love my wife very much but we chose each other without even thinking. That's what's so lucky about love.

People who say you should follow your heart probably don't have a heart to begin with. There's just no choice, careful, rational or otherwise. You're there, in your heart, even before you know it. When you stop to take stock it's already too late.

This is an even better system than universal suffrage, although it produces, 90% of the time, even direr results.

But the 10% that works, wow, that makes it all worth it, right?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:34 AM on October 1, 2001

Surely we can look at this from all angles without coughing up a hairball?

Some angles inevitably produce hairballs. I'm all in favor of the presentation and consideration of all viewpoints, but one cannot expect to make a statement and be shielded from others' responses to it!
posted by rushmc at 6:33 AM on October 1, 2001

But the 10% that works, wow, that makes it all worth it, right?

Perhaps, but that's difficult to assess from over here in the 90%.
posted by rushmc at 6:34 AM on October 1, 2001

I watched for forty two years over in the ninety percents, rushmc. I guess it helps to fall in love if you've had time to truly make a mess of your life beforehand. When I was young I always suspected those old geezers with their new girlfriends or wives saying how happy they were.

Well, you know what? *deep crimson blushes, enough embarrassment to shock a cat* they were speaking the truth.

Yes, I'm afraid believing in Rod Stewart is part of this. But you learn to handle it; believe me. *whopping lie*

Patience is all. When they say time cures everything, they forget to add that it mainly cures in advance, like salmon before it's smoked.

I just wish today I hadn't tried so hard in the past. So much time wasted; so many underpowered, crappy pseudo-romances I now have to explain, to my wife's regret.

I don't know how old you are, Michael, but if strangers like me can immediately like you and want to be near you, imagine what someone who is near you, and actually knows you, can feel.

The trick is chastity and high expectations, together. Innocence and patience(cue Miles Davis's "Someday My Prince Will Come")are, not only sexy, but lucky.

If I could go back and erase all my silly affairs, all of them probably peer-pressure induced, I would. I'd just love to be able to give my wife a diary where the years would tell how I waited for her, without even knowing who she was.

You guys and girls in the 90's can still do that.

Talk about lucky...!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:35 AM on October 1, 2001

When they say time cures everything, they forget to add that it mainly cures in advance, like salmon before it's smoked.

That is the most profound thing I've seen all week.

I differ with the rest of your post (we seem to have come to rest 180 degrees apart in this, having started, perhaps, on opposite sides of the circle), but that truly is a great notion.
posted by rushmc at 7:48 PM on October 1, 2001

we seem to have come to rest 180 degrees apart in this, having started, perhaps, on opposite sides of the circle

You're sounding more Portuguese than I am, rushmc! Our whole culture is built on that premise. It's called saudade: a constant, bittersweet longing for someone or something that belongs in another time, past or future. Hell, I even wrote my Ph.D thesis on it.

You should start listening to the Fado, Michael. Start with Amália Rodrigues("Com Que Voz" is probably the only truly great Portuguese record). That should cover, oh about 90 degrees of the difference.

Anway, people who say that to love and have lost is better than never having loved at all just show that they've never truly loved. It must be like all hell to lose such a state; like a coma. How could you not regret it, not wish it had never happened? By the way, this is, in a nutshell, what Fado is about. Enjoy!)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:08 PM on October 1, 2001

Yes yes yes, all that is fine but folks: "This is definately a fine cock...". I mean, did you even read that other thread- the guy found a severed penis in his drink! Holy cow!
posted by hincandenza at 1:50 AM on October 2, 2001

Hincandenza, someone forgot to tell you that Sigmund Freud is DEAD.
posted by bunnyfire at 3:12 AM on October 2, 2001

LOL hincandenza
posted by rushmc at 6:15 AM on October 2, 2001

On the topic of "Better to have loved and lost... NOT", Tommy Lee Jones said it best in MIB, when he turn on Will Smith and snarled, "Try it".
posted by djfiander at 6:39 AM on October 2, 2001

On the topic of "Better to have loved and lost... NOT", Tommy Lee Jones said it best in MIB, when he turn on Will Smith and snarled, "Try it".

I agree with the citation, but not the characterization as a "snarl." He said it softly, with an anguished undercurrent of bitterness and regret, brooking NO argument, as one who KNEW. A chilling line in a silly-fun movie.
posted by rushmc at 4:43 PM on October 2, 2001