Because clearly, we nail everything else.
What Happened
A recent report highlights a fringe movement advocating for ‘household voting,’ a system where only the head of a household (historically, men) would cast a vote, effectively disenfranchising women. Supporters believe this would improve the U.S. political landscape.
Our Take
Alright, folks, gather ’round, because today’s news has me chortling into my lukewarm coffee. Apparently, some folks out there think the U.S. would be better off if we just… got rid of women’s votes. Yes, you heard that right. Not a typo. Not a late April Fool’s joke. This isn’t some historical reenactment gone wrong; this is a headline from TODAY.
My first thought? What year is it? Did I accidentally time travel? Am I supposed to be wearing a corset and complaining about the vapours? Because last I checked, we’re in the 21st century, where my toaster oven is smarter than some of these ideas.
Now, I’m all for freedom of speech, even if that speech sounds like it escaped from a dusty antique book. But ‘better off without women’s votes’? Seriously? Are these the same people who can’t figure out how to work a washing machine without a 30-minute phone call to their mom? The same people who think ‘seasoning’ means putting salt on everything? The same people who look at a flat-pack furniture kit and immediately call in a SWAT team because ‘there are too many small pieces’?
Let’s be real. If these ‘household voting’ proponents were in charge of everything, we’d probably still be using carrier pigeons for email, and the internet would be a series of tubes made from actual tubes. Our economy would run on whatever lint they find in their pockets, and the national anthem would just be a series of confused grunts.
Imagine the government! Decisions would be made based on who had the loudest burp during the meeting. ‘Sir, what is our stance on foreign policy?’ ‘Ugh… *burp*… yes. More burps.’ We’d have national holidays for ‘Tuesday’ because it’s ‘kinda shaped like a T, which is cool.’ We’d be building public infrastructure out of LEGOs, and our national defense strategy would involve throwing socks at incoming threats. ‘They’ll never see it coming!’
And let’s not even get started on domestic issues. Laundry would be a mythical beast. Dishes would form towering monuments to forgotten meals. The concept of ‘clean’ would be a vague, philosophical ideal, much like the perfect sock pairing. We’d probably have an official ‘Man Flu’ national emergency declared every winter, requiring mandatory soup-making by, well, *someone else*.
So, no, I don’t think removing half the population’s voice from the democratic process is going to magically make things ‘better.’ Unless ‘better’ means ‘more likely to accidentally set the kitchen on fire while trying to boil water.’ In which case, mission accomplished. Maybe we should just stick to letting everyone vote, and these guys can stick to trying to assemble a shelf without summoning a ghost of their wives’ exasperated sighs.
💬 “The instructions are… complex.” — 💬 “More… ‘manly’ power!”
Inspired by: Supporters of Household Voting Believe U.S. Would Be Better Off Without Women’s Vote – The New York Times
