Women's Suffrage Has Failed to Improve the Electorate, Suggesting the 19th Amendment Should Be Reconsidered
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Maybe It’s Time We Girls Get Real About the 19th Amendment | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." August 30, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that giving women the right to vote in 1920 has backfired because modern women increasingly support abortion rights and, in one case, publicly defended a mother accused of killing her children. She concludes that because women's political choices no longer match what suffragists originally intended (using motherhood and moral instinct to improve society), maybe women's voting rights should be reconsidered.
Conclusion
The 19th Amendment's grant of voting rights to women has not improved American political life as suffragists intended, and revisiting (potentially reversing) women's suffrage is worth considering.
Premises
- Suffragists argued women's distinctive moral and maternal instincts would elevate the moral character of public life and improve the electorate.
- Women now show significantly more support than men for permissive abortion policies (64% vs 55% believe it should be legal in most/all cases; 58% vs 45% believe it's solely the woman's choice).
- There is a significant gender gap in voting patterns (a 19-point divide in the 2024 election), suggesting identity-based rather than reason-based voting.
- Some women have publicly defended a mother who killed her children, citing postpartum psychosis, which the author sees as a betrayal of the maternal values suffragists championed.
- Modern political engagement by women appears driven by emotion ('female wiles') rather than knowledge, reason, or civic responsibility.
- The outcomes associated with women's political participation (legal abortion, gender ideology in children, sympathy for a child-murderer) are things 19th-century suffragists would not recognize or endorse.
Assumptions
- Suffragists' original stated motivations (moral/maternal improvement of society) represent the legitimate standard against which women's voting should be judged.
- Current political positions favored disproportionately by women (support for abortion rights, sympathy in the Clancy case) are objectively harmful or morally wrong.
- Voting patterns and policy preferences among women reflect emotional reasoning rather than legitimate, reasoned political viewpoints.
- A gender gap in voting or policy preference is itself evidence of irrationality or moral failure, rather than simply differing values or life experiences.
- It's valid to judge an entire demographic group's fitness for political participation based on the actions/opinions of a subset (e.g., defenders of Lindsay Clancy).
- The suffragists' vision, formed in a specific historical/religious context, should still define appropriate political outcomes over a century later.