via Punkass Marc (originally from Echidne) comes this gem from the adorable “Prairie Muffin” set:
If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for “pool.” I’d like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women’s suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.
First and foremost, I’m with Marc on this one: What kind of asshole does one have to be when, given one thing they could change, they choose to deprive people of their rights?
That some wacko fundie women want women’s suffrage annhilated to appease their Patriarchs didn’t shock me. That any person alive would consider it the _one thing_ they would change about the world above all nearly sent me into a catatonic state. This Christian mother didn’t want to do away with discrimination or war or even godlessness. Nope. The one thing she would do for the world is take a woman’s right to vote away. Based on her property ownership addendum, I’m assuming she’d also favor outlawing property ownership for ladyfolk. Scrumptous.
If I could change one thing about the world, it wouldn’t even occur to me to take away anyone’s right to vote, no matter how much I hate them. How much loathing for her gender must this woman possess for this to be her #1 dream for the world?
I do wonder if she votes.
The comments at her place are even more horrendous. And pretty much all of them agree that voting should be tied to owning property — which isn’t racist at all, no sir! (Ignore the fact that urban areas are often more racially mixed, and it’s a lot harder for people in, say, New York City to own property than it is for people in Walla Walla, Washington). Of course, this is coming from the blog who plays Cowboys and Indians Savages with her kids, so…
But let’s take a look at the comments. They’re rich:
Dana, women were allowed to vote before suffrage. They just had to own property and be the head of their household (no father or husband). I think this is a perfectly sensible rule and would be glad to let me husband vote for our household.
Well as long as you’re happy, sister…
Why women’s suffrage? Why property ownership? I agree too many people have the vote, but why would you limit it those ways? My husband and I talk about this often. We used to think property ownership was the way to go, but now we’re not so sure that it’s a useful delineation in this kind of culture.
Too many people have the right to vote? Hmm. Apparently we should pick some other “undesirables” to disenfranchise, not just women.
About woman’s suffrage…I think it’s a matter of covenantal thinking and headship. If women are biblically to be under the headship of husbands and fathers, then those men are to represent the household when it comes to voting. Pieter was a judge at a polling place in a recent election here, and he told of several couples that came in who were registered for different political parties and ostensibly cancelled out each other’s votes. I think Nickey has a point about women who are heads of households for various reasons, but Deborah’s exception notwithstanding, men are to be the elders sitting in the gates, guiding public affairs; yet we find Christian women today having no compunctions about running for political offices and seeking leadership as “ministers” of governmental affairs. I’m obviously not against women having opinions or giving godly wisdom and counsel in certain spheres, but I believe that the feminization of both the church and the political realm is related to the increased involvement of women through voting and policy decision making. As for property ownership: I think thta the welfare state has become such a problem because of the ability of people to vote themselves largesse; property owners are often much more rooted and less likely to vote for politicians who advocate the theft of their property, thus creating a much more stable economy and society. Others have written extensively on this, but that’s my controversial position in a nutshell.
I also resent those women who have the compunction to run for elected office. I mean, women should have opinions and everything, but they shouldn’t ever be in a position of power to actually influence other people with those opinions.
So does your husband vet each of your blog entries to make sure that you aren’t contributing to the feminization of America?
As long as we are creating our own rules for the privilege of voting, I recommend that no one who receives a check from the government, ie welfare, social security, disability, be allowed to vote because the receipt of these funds would create a conflict of interest.
So let’s disenfranchise the poor, the old and the disabled. Sounds like a perfect GOP-approved plan.
I completely agree with both removing women’s suffrage and coupling voting rights with property ownership. I am always hesitant to admit my views on the suffrage movement, but I strongly feel that our nation made a grievous error when we allowed women many of the same “rights” as men. First off, I think that voting should be a family affair with the wife putting in her input, but the man ultimately deciding on which candidate he votes for. I think women are too emotional and often vote for the “bleeding heart liberal” cause because it feels right to them. When I tell folks my view on this they always ask if I vote. Yes, I do because my husband wants me to.
Yes, I would prefer to be treated like chattel. Who needs those silly “rights”? And for that matter, who needs consistency when hypocrisy is so much sweeter?
Her follow-up post is funny too, especially this part:
But I also believe that even though I don’t agree with general women’s suffrage, I still have the right to speak my mind on my own website. Ironically, those who consider themselves promoters of freedom and toleration don’t like for me to express my opinions, and some even make shocking suggestions about what ought to be done to those who hold similar views. It appears that the Proud Pagans and Free-Thinking Feminists can only tolerate those who agree with them.
We disagree with you, and you interpret that as not liking you to express your opinions. No, friend, we’re just expressing our opinions in response! And we aren’t stating that we would like to put up institutional barriers to your right to express your opinion — which is exactly what you stated when you said you’d like to end women’s suffrage.
And then there’s the Prairie Muffin Manifesto.
Prairie Muffins are helpmeets to their husbands, seeking creative and practical ways to further their husbands’ callings and aid them in their dominion responsibilities.
Prairie Muffins obviously have no callings of their own.
Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.
No surprise there. I wonder, though, if Prairie Muffins are content in letting God control the actual bearing of those children — that is, if it’s ungodly to use birth control in preventing pregnancy, is it also ungodly to attempt to avoid the punishment that God laid on Eve and women everywhere? Do Prairie Muffins refuse painkillers during childbirth? What about medical care? After all, back in the good old pre-birth-control days, women who had ten kids like this particular Prairie Muffin often didn’t make it. So does God allow medical intervention during childbirth, but not during sex? And having babies is supposed to be painful and difficult, at least according to the Old Testament that I read. So shouldn’t the good Christian ladies refuse medical intervention at all stages of reproduction? You know, God’s plan and all.
Prairie Muffins do not reflect badly on their husbands by neglecting their appearance; they work with the clay God has given, molding it into an attractive package for the pleasure of their husbands.
Wouldn’t want his friends to think that he married a dog! Remember, ladies, every part of your body, from uterus to face, is strictly for the guy you were lucky enough to marry. So don’t you go and get any personal pleasure out of it!
Prairie Muffins own aprons and they know how to use them.
…does anyone not know how to use an apron? Tie it on. It might keep your clothes from getting dirty. Good work, ladies.
Prairie Muffins place their husbands’ needs and desires above other obligations, arranging their schedules and responsibilities so that they do not neglect the one who provides for and protects them and their children.
This one speaks for itself.
Prairie Muffins are fiercely submissive to God and to their husbands.
So does this one. (Question: Are Prairie Muffins into BDSM? Just curious.)
Prairie Muffins appreciate godly role models, such as Anne Bradstreet, Elizabeth Prentiss and Elisabeth Elliot. They do not idolize Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) or Louisa May Alcott (Little Women); while they may enjoy aspects of home life presented in their books, PMs understand that the latent humanism and feminism in these stories and in the lives of these women is not worthy of emulation.
Pssh, humanism? Who needs that? And everyone knows that Little House on the Prairie and Little Women presented women as people, and that is just a bad influence.
Prairie Muffins make significant economic contributions to their households in many ways. They are careful with the hard-earned money that their husbands bring home, wisely weighing expenditures to ensure that they stretch the dollars as far as they can go, without being parsimonious. They also may help their husbands in their husbands’ callings or bring money into their households through homecentered business under their husbands’ authority, as long as that activity does not detract from their very important homekeeping duties.
If it cuts into time spent dusting the doilies, sorry honey, but you can’t do it. And don’t even go thinking about having callings or interests of your own (wait, doesn’t blogging cut into housekeeping duties? Huh.)
Prairie Muffins recognize that all good gifts come from the Father of Lights (James 1:17) and they also realize their privileged position as “home despot,” thus they are grateful to God and their husbands for enabling them to engage in the wonderful role of homekeeper.
Thank you, God, for making me a slave in my own home!
Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.
When your husband “rebukes” you with a black eye, smile and say thank you.
Though we abhor the idea of women being involved in the military and fighting battles which men are commanded to fight, Prairie Muffins recognize that there is a real battle in which they are on the front lines: the battle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent. In this most-important conflict, we gratefully serve King Jesus in the capacity He has given us, waving our wooden spoons and rallying our children to stand alongside us in the battle, training them to be mighty warriors in the defense and furthering of God’s kingdom.
Ok this one just made me laugh.
Prairie Muffins are happy to be girls—they rejoice in the distinctives which God sovereignly bestowed on them which make them feminine. They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God’s grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.
Prairie Muffins, apparently, are either under the age of 18 or are exceptionally emotionally stunted. Excuse me if I have little patience for adult women who refer to themselves (without irony) as “girls.”
And God hates hormonal weakness.
The women who will have the greatest impact on the world, those who will have the greatest influence on history, are those “well-behaved” women who faithfully serve God in their daily lives, seeking His approval rather than the world’s admiration. Prairie Muffins know that while engaging in the kingdom-building work in their homes of loving, training and disciplining their children, the world may not express its approval, but it will be turned upside down.
Actually this isn’t true at all, but please keep telling yourself that. That way, the rest of us can go out and actually change things — and real change rarely comes from the well-behaved.
We are reminded in Proverbs 10:19, “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise.” Prairie Muffins must refrain from being mouthy, including online. It is not our place to always set everyone straight or tell everything we know. In fact, Proverbs also warns us not to answer a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:4), so pray for wisdom before unleashing your opinions like any fool with a keyboard.
You can still be a fool with a keyboard, just pray for guidance first. Oookay.