In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
Just for clarification, this part has been answered in other articles discussing this subject. Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name (which happens 99.9% of the time) because their birth certificate would still have their maiden name. Since the voting rolls contain their married name and not their maiden name, the names wouldn’t match which would be grounds for removal from rolls. This would be made worse for those women who were married recently, as it’s more likely that even more documentation such as a drivers’ license would also still contain their maiden name and would therefore not be considered acceptable proof.
Women would have to provide additional documentation (such as a marriage license), but it’s expected that this alone would cause some women to consider it not worth the hassle and therefore not bother voting.
P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
Sadly, there are women who openly embrace this line of thinking. Particularly those who were raised in ultra-religious households where women being subservient to men in all matters is the norm, and have no problems forcing those views on the secular women that they view as “whores”. Mostly, it’s a subconscious way of lashing out against the fact that they themselves have been oppressed for their whole lives and therefore feel better being the oppressor instead of the oppressed. But they are out there.
Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name
Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.
Just for clarification, this part has been answered in other articles discussing this subject. Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name (which happens 99.9% of the time) because their birth certificate would still have their maiden name. Since the voting rolls contain their married name and not their maiden name, the names wouldn’t match which would be grounds for removal from rolls. This would be made worse for those women who were married recently, as it’s more likely that even more documentation such as a drivers’ license would also still contain their maiden name and would therefore not be considered acceptable proof.
Women would have to provide additional documentation (such as a marriage license), but it’s expected that this alone would cause some women to consider it not worth the hassle and therefore not bother voting.
Sadly, there are women who openly embrace this line of thinking. Particularly those who were raised in ultra-religious households where women being subservient to men in all matters is the norm, and have no problems forcing those views on the secular women that they view as “whores”. Mostly, it’s a subconscious way of lashing out against the fact that they themselves have been oppressed for their whole lives and therefore feel better being the oppressor instead of the oppressed. But they are out there.
Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.