Until the twentieth century...  The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered "inferior" or "too emotional" (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!

... By the 20th century, American Christians saw the "height" of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman's right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God's law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.

In regards to a woman's right to vote; if husband and wife are truly "one flesh" and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women's voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

That seems clear to me. But apparently, there is quite a discussion still going on about that essay in conservative Christian circles.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Chancey, (wife of Matthew, the main subject of my article, as the winner of the Old Spice-sponsored, Art of Manliness' Man of the Year competition) discussed views very similar to Abshire's in a newspaper article in the heat of her husband's unsuccessful campaign for Alabama Public Service Commission. It must be tough figuring out how to campaign for votes when you believe that women should submit their votes to their husband's so they do not cancel each other out. Such are the ideological and practical woes of the modern theocrat.

Meanwhile, Kathryn Joyce, who I interviewed for my story, sent me a transcript of a interview with Jennifer Chancey that appears in the film The Monstrous Regiment of Women:

Chancey: "The bottom line is that God created men for leadership. He clearly says in his Word, when women are in leadership, it's a sign of a curse on a nation. Basically saying, you've messed up so badly, I'm going to put children and women over top of you. You are only fit to be ruled by women."

Narrator: "Today in America, 7.8 million more women vote than men. America is now indicted under this verse, Isaiah 3:12. 'Children are their oppressors and women rule over them. The men of the suffrage era were willing to abdicate their dominion role in that they were willing to give up half of their electoral power to women. The 19th Amendment can be seen as the point in American history when the fahters ceased to sit in the gates as representatives of their families' interests: individualism and self-interest would now be the approach to the ballot box."

There is much more to the Christian patriarchy movement as discussed by Phillips, Chancey and Abshire. And fortunately there is a book coming out that throws the windows open on this important but obscure movement.

Kathryn Joyce's book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement is due out from Beacon Press in March.