Women: What happens in the voting booth, stays in the voting booth

[Kathryn]

I was reading this last week about someone's experience waiting in line for early voting and seeing a husband standing over his wife while she was voting. And another man saying that he fills out his wife's and mother's mail-in ballots and then they sign them. The patriarchy is still the framework of many evangelical/traditionalist marriages.

And in early voting, I saw a wife standing over her husband and he was doing whatever she said. So I guess it goes both ways here.

 

[crossfire]

Any predictions as to how this might affect the divorce rate?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No… that is not the Gospel.

Yes it is.

• 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5)
• “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

Do the words embarrass you that you chose to disregard what they say or redefine them to mean what you'd rather they said? I hope so. If so, it demonstrates the civilizing effect that humanism has had over Christianity in the West these last few centuries.

The Muslims didn't have that benefit until recently, and so, unlike you who understands that the biblical position is passe and that holding it is socially unacceptable to tens of millions, they're still doing what their scriptures say. They don't have much use for democracy or women's rights, but they're moving along albeit much more slowly, since the humanists are few among them, but they have access to the media. The girls and women of Iran, for example, can see what other women in the world have that they don't have but want, which has and will have a westernizing influence on their cultures much to the chagrin of the men there.

But you, instead of saying that the biblical admonitions quoted above just don't pertain in the 21st century, you represent that the words never meant what they say, because many believers just won't say that their scriptures are wrong or outmoded.

Frankly, I'm just done being kind and gracious about anyone who votes for that piece of human trash. Not when that sack of #$@% cost us basic human rights and will absolutely be fine with removing even more.

You and I don't agree on much, but I agree with your outrage and contempt here. MAGA including those here on RF do not deserve forbearance or deferential language - something I would offer to other kinds of people with whom I disagree such as you, for example.

But MAGA? No. I don't post anything that isn't carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but some such ideas are painful for some to read, and if it's somebody that I don't want to disconcert, I'll be respectful of that person in my answers, but not MAGA. If my comment implies that they are intellectually and/or morally bankrupt, or enemies of the country and its Constitution, for example, and that angers them, oh well. Their feelings don't matter to me anymore. I have zero empathy there.

Now you seem to be approaching or have reached that attitude as well. I understand and appreciate your willingness to not merely disagree with those people, but also to express your disgust and contempt for such people.

There is a a video that I saw where they put up part of a Republican response to this add. It was delicious to see them weeping MAGA tears. I could probably find it again

You, too. Good to read.

Yes, MAGA tears. I still haven't forgotten f forgiven the rights reaction to Trump's victory in 2016, which included phrases like, "the sweet taste of liberal tears" and "f*** your feelings." That's been my attitude toward them ever since.

 

[Quintessence]

I didn't vote for Trump (I already voted via mail).

Didn't say you did. Being royally ticked off at women being stripped of human rights is not about you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I got out of it is women don't get to choose/aren't allowed to choose but in only one place.

It says "In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose"

It speaks to rights, not ability.

The Roe v. Wade ruling was based the implications of rights like the right to bodily autonomy and the right to privacy. Overturning Roe v. Wade implies that people who are - or can become - pregnant don't actually hold these rights.

How this denial of rights will manifest on other issues remains to be seen, but the rights themselves are already gone, according to the Supreme Court.

 

[Quintessence]

Now you seem to be approaching or have reached that attitude as well. I understand and appreciate your willingness to not merely disagree with those people, but also to express your disgust and contempt for such people.

You talk about this like it's a good thing. It's not. Enslavement of women through forced birth has always been a very firm line one does not cross - I just never, ever imagined the so-called leadership of this country would be evil and vile enough reinstate it. Then again, considering this country is also flirting with fascism maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that half the country - women and girls (and also anyone nonbinary or transgender for that matter) - are being thrown under the bus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is.

• 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5)
• “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

Do the words embarrass you that you chose to disregard what they say or redefine them to mean what you'd rather they said? I hope so. If so, it demonstrates the civilizing effect that humanism has had over Christianity in the West these last few centuries.

The Muslims didn't have that benefit until recently, and so, unlike you who understands that the biblical position is passe and that holding it is socially unacceptable to tens of millions, they're still doing what their scriptures say. They don't have much use for democracy or women's rights, but they're moving along albeit much more slowly, since the humanists are few among them, but they have access to the media. The girls and women of Iran, for example, can see what other women in the world have that they don't have but want, which has and will have a westernizing influence on their cultures much to the chagrin of the men there.

But you, instead of saying that the biblical admonitions quoted above just don't pertain in the 21st century, you represent that the words never meant what they say, because many believers just won't say that their scriptures are wrong or outmoded.

You and I don't agree on much, but I agree with your outrage and contempt here. MAGA including those here on RF do not deserve forbearance or deferential language - something I would offer to other kinds of people with whom I disagree such as you, for example.

But MAGA? No. I don't post anything that isn't carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but some such ideas are painful for some to read, and if it's somebody that I don't want to disconcert, I'll be respectful of that person in my answers, but not MAGA. If my comment implies that they are intellectually and/or morally bankrupt, or enemies of the country and its Constitution, for example, and that angers them, oh well. Their feelings don't matter to me anymore. I have zero empathy there.

Now you seem to be approaching or have reached that attitude as well. I understand and appreciate your willingness to not merely disagree with those people, but also to express your disgust and contempt for such people.

You, too. Good to read.

Yes, MAGA tears. I still haven't forgotten f forgiven the rights reaction to Trump's victory in 2016, which included phrases like, "the sweet taste of liberal tears" and "f*** your feelings." That's been my attitude toward them ever since.

Here is the video that I was talking about. At 4:45 the ad plays and at 5:40 you can hear the MAGA response.

 

[Kathryn]

My late husband was a Trump supporter and never ever thought to undermine me in any way though I did not support Trump at all. He didn't even want to KNOW who I was voting for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You talk about this like it's a good thing. It's not. Enslavement of women through forced birth has always been a very firm line one does not cross - I just never, ever imagined the so-called leadership of this country would be evil and vile enough reinstate it. Then again, considering this country is also flirting with fascism maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that half the country - women and girls (and also anyone nonbinary or transgender for that matter) - are being thrown under the bus.

You seem to have misunderstood me. My words were, "Now you seem to be approaching or have reached that attitude as well. I understand and appreciate your willingness to not merely disagree with those people, but also to express your disgust and contempt for such people."

Somehow, you read that as praise of the enslavement of women. I was praising your change in tone and relative intolerance of MAGA. How did you miss that? You must read my words through a filter such that even when we agree, you don't see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My late husband was a Trump supporter and never ever thought to undermine me in any way though I did not support Trump at all. He didn't even want to KNOW who I was voting for.

So what? That is probably true. Do you think that you represent all women married to a Trump supporter? I would say that is clearly not the case. If this was just a nothingburger Republican operatives would have ignored it. That they are screaming "foul" tells us that it is true for a significant number of voters.

 

[Pogo]

Sometimes women may indeed say something on the outside but will vote differently at the booth.

Of course, men will too.

Just wow.

 

[F1fan]

It suggests women vote in secret rather than have intelligent conversations with their male partners about why they voted a certain way.

You seem oblivious to the uber masculinity of many MAGA men. These are far right ideological attitudes that have adopted an obsolete yet traditional Christian belief that women are subservient to men.

And who says these couples aren't having intelligent conversations? If they disagree strongly it might be wiser to NOT discuss politics. In my large family we do not talk politics at all, and that is because it's known that there's a broad disagreement of beliefs and attitudes. We keep the peace by not discussing politics.

In other words, your too weak to think for yourself or stand up to your man or talk intelligently about this very important topic, so go do it in secret.

I find your interpretation here odd. That didn't occur to me at all. Why is it the woman who defaults into being weak? The adds reflect how the husbands are weak and unable to tolerate their wives disagreeing with them, and the women need to show their strength by not being intimidated, and asserting their rights privately if necessary. Why no criticism of men who believe their wives must agree with them?

Let's note it is conservative men who have taken away the reproductive rights of women, which suggests they need to impose their rules onto women.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes women may indeed say something on the outside but will vote differently at the booth.

Of course, men will too.

That one is hilarious, but for all of the wrong reasons. Democrats will just laugh at that ad. The Democratic ad works because it is far closer to reality.

 

[F1fan]

And in early voting, I saw a wife standing over her husband and he was doing whatever she said. So I guess it goes both ways here.

Or his vision is poor. Or perhaps he has some medical problem and she's helping him.

 

[Pogo]

Any predictions as to how this might affect the divorce rate?

Positively for some negatively for those left behind

 

[crossfire]

Here is the US Code regarding Voter intimidation for reference:

18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
​

 

[We Never Know]

I hope you realize that was in reference to an important area where many women have lost the right to choose. If a woman has lost the right to choose over her own body a lot of other rights pale in comparison.

By the way, the number of early women voters has risen faster than the number of early male voters.

'In The One Place' is misleading.

'At One Place' or 'In One Place' would have been better IMO but its politics and our politics are full of misleading and dishonesty.

 

[wellwisher]

Because it is true to life for a lot of women.

If the female underground vote is based on emotion and gossip, it is not going to be beneficial to the country. Intelligent women with a good handle on the issues, and in a good relationship with her husband; friend, will not mind talking about these things. Her husband will understand her view and her passion and accept her uniqueness. Lock step is a DNC thing. The commercial assume woman are air head, who have to sneak around, since she never discusses issues that impact us of all, with her husband, but rather prefer stay shallow to the gossip, and therefore feels the need to sneak around and not stand up.

Problems in marriage occur due to poor communication and trying to second guess each other. Since divorce is more important in the DNC, they may be projecting the source of their communication problem; ignorance due to silence and gossip.

I was watching a "man in the street" news special, who was at a Harris rally, and he was walking around asking people nicely if they were voting for Kamala. About 90% said yes. He was polite and friendly, and followed up with the question, do they think Trump is a Fascist? They also agreed. Then, he asked, do you know what a fascist is? All the women become stumped, and could not answer the last question. Uninformed and emotional lockstep is more on the DNC side. Trump women can discuss the economy and fascism.

To the Left, it is more about belonging to a group, that feels good, and reciting the party line without understanding what it means. Such women may have to sneak around their husbands to avoid explaining, since they are not sure why they fundamentally agree with something without understanding; emotional thinker. This was often why men will try to help them become rational; pros and cons. The DNC does not have many men left, so many DNC women flounder, and the DNC takes advantage of the emotional thinkers.

There was one young woman, who was afraid to say anything or lie, but when politely pushed, she whispered, Trump. She was afraid to become ostracized, and after she admitted it, she realize who the reporter was working for; FOX. She asked if he would not use her in his report, to avoid the emotional nags who expect ignorance conformity, and may get angry is you are not in line.

I was reading something about Bezos, who owns Washington Post and him not endorsing any candidate for President. He said this decision was based on people no longer fooled or responding well to the old media model of biased disinformation. It no longer makes economic sense, with many people lookin for real information. People are more informed or wish to be. That industry is going to need a new business model to survive. The DNC impact on media, has run its course. Group lying is no longer profitable. Bezos was smart enough to change with the times. Although his editorial staff is stuck in the past; glory days of mass media manipulation. The main stream media is now also divided. FOX is gaining market share since is more balanced but still reports facts that usually benefit the RNC, since the total lie machine is still 90% Harris making it easy to fact check and report.

 

[Watchmen]

Didn't say you did. Being royally ticked off at women being stripped of human rights is not about you.

You might want to watch your implications. And you're right, it's totally reasonable to be ticked off at women being stripped of abortion rights.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

My late husband was a Trump supporter and never ever thought to undermine me in any way though I did not support Trump at all. He didn't even want to KNOW who I was voting for.

Most men I know don't tell their wives how to vote. My wife did not vote for Trump in 2016 but did in 2020 and in 2024. My two daughters voted for a third party candidate in this election. We have conversations but we all ultimately decide for ourselves. People can do marriages however they want but my opinion is a husband and wife should not keep secrets and should be able to talk about who they voted for. Promoting deceiving a spouse is unethical in my opinion.