Saturday, May 14, 2016

For sincere Christians, the track record of women's suffrage is deplorable

If sincere Christians were to stop and assess the results of women's suffrage, the result would be questioning if it was ever a good idea to begin with. Which is precisely why most Christians go out of their way to treat this question as one that cannot be asked.

14 comments:

planks length said...

Are you saying that the ills of the past century and the current insanity as regards "gender identification" are due to women's suffrage? Are there data to support such a thesis, keeping in mind that correlation does not equate to causation?

Crude said...

Are you saying that the ills of the past century and the current insanity as regards "gender identification" are due to women's suffrage?

I'm saying that nearly one hundred years of women's suffrage in the US hasn't produced any political results that can be pointed at as a great development from a Christian perspective.

As for data, I can point at pretty much the entirety of political movements that are centered around women's interests or female political leadership. What few bright spots there are (Schlafly, Thatcher, etc) are not just so isolated to seem like aberrations, but typically explicitly frowned upon by 'women's movements' themselves.

Vox Maximus said...

Crude,

I used to have strong thoughts about women's suffrage, and I still do, but I think, now, that the problem has more to do with universal suffrage in general, for there are many men that are as bad as women concerning voting. Furthermore, it seems absurd to me that we have to pass some type of test to drive, or adopt, or practice law, and yet any moron can vote.

So, in my view, the problem is with universal suffrage in general, not women's suffrage in particular.

Maximus
www.voxmaximus.blogspot.com

Crude said...

Vox,

I agree with you, really. Many men really are rotten and likely shouldn't vote.

The reason I brought up one rather than the other is because criticizing men is easy, and non-controversial (even when it should be controversial.) I can make arguments for limiting the voting rights of men, or discouraging men of various types from voting, and so long as I'm avoiding the obvious live wires no one's going to be very worked up.

Mention that women's suffrage has been pretty disastrous, even from a particularly Christian point of view, and people tense up and get defensive. It's an awful idea to have, a question that shouldn't be asked at all - to ask it is to offend, and to offend is to be wrong.

Vox Maximus said...

Crude,

In that respect, you are absolutely correct. Talk about limiting the vote in some abstract sense, and most people will listen. Mention limiting women's voting specifically, and many people go bat-shit crazy. And if you want to make people go really bat-hit crazy, mention--as I have--that perhaps women should not be allowed to vote until and unless they have had children (or even three children, being that that is above the 2.1 birth replacement level) and are married. The reasoning for that is simple: being married with children shows you are capable of at least some responsibility and good decision-making, it shows that you contribute to society, and it shows that you will be making decisions with an outlook on the future, all while not being fully dependent on the government for support.

Maximus
www.voxmaximus.blogspot.com

malcolmthecynic said...

Vox,

I've run that idea by before. People REALLYdon't like thinking about it.

Crude said...

Malcolm and Vox,

I'm reminded of Vox Day's recent run-in with the 'Catholic' woman who talked about German women being treated as 'brood mares' because they were treated with respect for having a large and stable family.

Reading your ideas, I'm tempted to combine the two: grant the right to vote only to men and women in stable relationships with multiple children. Partly because it at least makes some amount of sense, something that could be argued for. But partly because it seems like that's a nice combination of argument-dynamite, and I love to light fuses like that now and then.

planks length said...

Have any of you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? (No resemblance to the movie!) In it, he imagines a society in which you can't vote until you have performed some sort of public service first - usually by serving in the military. He also had the idea (but I can't remember in which book) that anyone who received monetary support from the government was disqualified from voting.

Vox Maximus said...

Planks Length,

Actually, it was Starship Troopers that first got me thinking about this idea about 20 years ago. In my view, the ideal system would be a points-type system:

- So many points for military service;
- So many points for passing an exam;
- So many points for having children and a stable family;
- So many points for paying taxes, etc.

And they points would be removed for being on welfare, being a single-mother, divorce, criminal convictions, being in a government job, and so on.

Then, only if you pass a points-threshold are you allowed to vote. That way, everyone has an equal opportunity to vote, but only those who proved themselves as valuable to society (in some way) would be able to do so.

Just an idea.

Maximus
www.voxmaximus.blogspot.com

planks length said...

Vox,

Interesting ideas. I'm a bit skeptical of the "exam" however. Makes me think of the so-called literacy tests that were used to disenfranchise black folk not that long ago.

But no one is ever going to organize society that rationally, so speculate away!

By the way, isn't it amazing how such a great novel as Starship Troopers can end up as such a piece of crap movie of the same name?

Crude said...

Makes me think of the so-called literacy tests that were used to disenfranchise black folk not that long ago.

I know it's utterly un-PC of me to say, but I never got behind the idea that literacy tests were terrible because so many blacks would (at the time, anyway) fail them. In fact, given current stats, 'Having children and being in a stable relationship' would massively disenfranchise blacks in the US as well.

By the way, isn't it amazing how such a great novel as Starship Troopers can end up as such a piece of crap movie of the same name?

I vaguely recall that the movie was intentionally made terrible precisely because the last thing people wanted to do was treat Heilein's writing on that matter as something worth taking seriously.

Mr. Green said...

Crude: Mention that women's suffrage has been pretty disastrous, even from a particularly Christian point of view, and people tense up and get defensive.

I don't know that most Christians treat the question as unaskable; I expect most of them haven't even thought about it. Though I also expect that most of them would by default state it was a good thing. But has it really been disastrous, or did it just coincidentally come about around the same time as society started falling apart? The causes (movies, individualism, welfare, material prosperity, etc.) weren't invented by women, nor particularly promoted by them. (I've seen claims that welfare is supported more by women, but is that strictly the case, or again, is it that it is supported by women in a society that is already going in the wrong direction? Is it the cause or the effect?)


Planks Length: Interesting ideas. I'm a bit skeptical of the "exam" however. Makes me think of the so-called literacy tests that were used to disenfranchise black folk not that long ago.

I don't know how good a measure literacy is of knowing how to run a country, but perhaps it is arguably a reasonable proxy for being interested and informed enough to vote. But the real problem with exams is that testing your "education" will end up being a measure of how well you were swayed by Marxist university profs. I like the idea of eligibility based on having an actual family, though, for men and women.


By the way, considering the disaster that's befallen society since men got the vote... should we abolish the franchise altogether?

Crude said...

But has it really been disastrous, or did it just coincidentally come about around the same time as society started falling apart?

When it comes to other things that have fallen apart, I can generally point to two prominent sides, one of which was largely right. The Church is in a state of disrepair, but I don't have to just point at 'Catholics' - I can point at traditionalists and liberals. The GOP has fallen apart, but I don't have to point at 'Republicans'. I can point at RINOs, social conservatives, and more. With blacks, I can point at good people who were trying to rescue and maintain the standards black cultural forces were abandoning or undermining.

When it comes to feminism, I don't have that luxury. There's no real 'sensible voice' that was fighting the good fight where 'women's issues' are concerned. It's like trying to find the brighter side of LGBT causes. LGBT organizations didn't spring into prominence at the wrong time and, elsewhere, they'd likely be more sensible - it seems rotten from the core. There is no side of women's issues that, say, Phyllis Schlafly was on - she was an altogether different person, outside of that culture altogether.

But the real problem with exams is that testing your "education" will end up being a measure of how well you were swayed by Marxist university profs.

I wish to largely abolish academia, so we may see education tests differently. I would rather have tests anyone can study for on their own than universities that do the job, and I'd go so far as to say I'd want there to be no test that required that rotten infrastructure.

As for when 'men' got the vote - 'men' didn't get it early on. A particular subset of men did, largely because they were judged as typically having the necessary investment and temperament to understand the primacy of stability and long-term interests. Nowadays no one bats an eye at being told 'mexican immigrants are rushing to be able to vote in time for these elections so they can vote against policies that would harm Mexican national interests'. That's the sort of thing that should be followed by forfeited citizenship and expulsion from the country. Instead it's just 'Well duh, they want to protect what they care about. They care about another country more? So what, everyone's entitled to their opinion in America.'

Mr. Green said...

Crude: When it comes to feminism, I don't have that luxury. There's no real 'sensible voice' that was fighting the good fight where 'women's issues' are concerned.

OK, I see what you mean. There are sensible voices arguing from, say, an orthodox Christian position, etc., but that's not part of feminism as a movement itself; those are outside voices. Which makes sense, because being female is not a "movement" — anything sensible is naturally going to flow out of general discourse about society, the family, etc. (Likewise, human sexuality is not a movement, and you don't need one unless you are going outside what is natural.)

I wish to largely abolish academia, so we may see education tests differently.

I meant that the way things are today, if tests were somehow instituted to vet voters' competence, they would end up being tests of political correctness, so in practice, it's certainly better not to have them. I think academia is important to having a civilised society, but that doesn't really include academia the way it is now... if burning it to the ground is the best way to let something new arise from the ashes, then so be it; but hey, if the Internet placidly drives them into irrelevance instead, that works for me.

As for when 'men' got the vote - 'men' didn't get it early on. [...] Nowadays no one bats an eye at being told 'mexican immigrants are rushing to be able to vote in time for these elections so they can vote against policies that would harm Mexican national interests'.

Going all the way back to the few men who had enough power to stand up to the king... but there is something perverse about having a say in the running of a country to which you don't feel loyalty. Which comes down to a potential problem with democracy in general (or of politics in general — whoever has power will face the temptation to use it for his own interests instead of the good of society).