Based on the Bible, it is wrong for women to exercise authority over men. However, women voting can lead to a passing of laws that the majority of men would oppose. One example of this is abortion – more than 50% of men are against it, but more than 50% of women are for it, which is why it is legal.
Interestingly enough, abortion is legal because of Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision made by an all-male court appointed by all-male presidents and approved by nearly all-male senates. If men are so against abortion and it’s only because women are for it that it’s legal . . . I mean seriously, what? That makes literally no sense. Also, a recent Pew research survey found that while 55% of women think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a full 53% of men think the same. So, wrong again.
But what I really want to know is this: What if 70% of men thought abortions should be legal while 70% of women thought the practice should be banned? Would the blogger quoted above change her mind? Presumably not, and if you look at what she actually says, her concern is that “women voting can lead to a passing of laws that the majority of men would oppose.” Is the will of the majority of men somehow sacrosanct?
But this isn’t just a quiverfull thing. This idea that women shouldn’t have the vote because they lean left, or that if women had never gotten the vote we’d be living in a conservative free market utopia, is actually something that’s been tossed about on the conservative Right in areas not associated with the Christian patriarchy culture so pervasive in some areas of the homeschool movement. Here is an example:
John Derbyshire, a British-American conservative author and columnist for the National Review, has written a new book titled We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism. The book contains a section called “The Case Against Female Suffrage.” Yesterday on his radio show, Alan Colmes asked Derbyshire to articulate his argument.“What is the case against female suffrage?” Colmes asked. “The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left,” Derbyshire responded nonsensically. “They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.”
Huh. It looks to me like “the case against female suffrage” might very well also be “the case against black suffrage.” Or, you know, “the case against the suffrage of anyone who doesn’t vote like I think they should.”
Hey, you know what? Wars are disproportionately started by men, as opposed to by women. Perhaps I should use this as the starting point for “the case against male political power.” After all, if females are as nurturing as Derbyshire insists, wouldn’t it be a damn sight better to have them at the helm in times of political tension? Who knows how many wars could be prevented! Down with male suffrage!
Except that I don’t decide that people shouldn’t vote just because I don’t like how they vote.
Honestly, this suggestion that women should lose the vote because we’re not voting “right” (get it?) is both short-sighted and horribly dismissive. What if, at some point in the future, it’s women who vote more conservatively and men who vote more progressively? Also, is it possible that women vote differently than men for a reason (i.e. that maybe they honestly have their own thoughts, ideas, and needs that actually, you know, matter?) and that maybe they should be allowed to have a say in how society is run, given that they live in it? Jeez, this is just such a ridiculous argument! I almost can’t believe I have to address it!
And now for some happy-making. I will never cease to love this video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYQhRCs9IHM