If Women Won’t Vote My Way . . . They Shouldn’t Vote

One argument against women voting that I didn’t mention in my recent post on the subject is that women lean left. The blog post I responded to mentioned that here:

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.

YouTube Preview Image

About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Slow Learner

    Until the 2001 election, British women voted for the Conservative party more often than men – but I suppose to the American hard right, even Thatcher is a wishy-washy liberal?

    • Christine

      She probably is. (And to this woman, she’s an inappropriate leader anyhow, because women should submit to men).

      • Cassiopeia

        Hahahahahahaha.

        Oh boy, would I have paid to see that.

        Serious money to see this lady tell Maggie ‘The Iron Lady’ Thatcher at the height of her power that she was an inappropriate leader because she was a woman and she should submit to a man.

        That would have been utterly amazing.

        (For the record, I’m an English liberal so I might as well be a communist or something)

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        People actually did say that to her more than once. Her response was about what you’d expect …

        I haven’t the time to find it now, but it was at the very least written about. I don’t know if it was taped or on radio, though.

    • Gail

      I think they would probably find Thatcher conservative, but on the moderate side. Having been in the UK for a while, I think the conservative party here is on par with the Democratic Party in the US. Socially, they’ve made about the same amount of progress–they both recently started supporting gay marriage openly. The difference is that of the major political parties in their respective countries, one is the furthest left and one the furthest right. Which is why I find it absolutely hilarious when American conservatives claim that liberals have become more and more extreme.

      Also, I guess I hang out in a pretty liberal crowd, but Thatcher seems to be like the Dick Cheney of the UK, in that people make jokes about how the temperature drops thirty degrees when she enters the room, how she has no heart, etc. I once told some friends that I’d never heard anyone British say something positive about her, so one of my friends (an ex-soldier in his late 50s) did grudgingly say that she did some positive things before going a bit too far. So that’s the nicest thing I’ve heard a Brit say about her.

      • Slow Learner

        Yeah, that would be a liberal crowd. She’s a very divisive figure, and I know people who honestly think she “saved the country” from economic collapse, as well as people who see her as evil, cackling while she wrought devastation.
        In my experience, even amongst those who think she was broadly positive and successful as Prime Minister, many people would laugh at those jokes though – I’d only expect them to fall flat in a meeting of a Conservative Association…

      • Gail

        Good to know. I guess most of the people I know are in academia, which is a field that seems to run to the left.

        And she did help invent soft-serve ice cream, so I can’t say she’s ALL bad =).

      • Jayn

        “Which is why I find it absolutely hilarious when American conservatives claim that liberals have become more and more extreme.”

        I know what you mean. I used to consider myself a bit left of center on the Canadian spectrum–by American standards I feel like a radical sometimes.

      • sylvia_rachel

        Canadian politics is a bit like that too. Our current Conservative (no longer Progressive Conservative since the PCs merged with the far-right Reform/Alliance/whatever party a few years back) government has some definite right-wing stuff going on — for example, they have gone BATSHIT CRAZY with War of 1812 commemorative stuff, like they’re trying to refashion Canada as a Bold Warrior Nation or something — as well as some plain old stupid stuff, such as completely screwing over anything that depends on accurate census data by making the long-form census voluntary BECAUSE PRIVACY, while meanwhile they have no problem tracking everyone’s financial transactions all the time. They’re too “we have to be tough on [crime / fake refugee claimants / people on welfare]!” for my liking, and they have a long history of making decisions in defiance of the research evidence. (There’s also the thing about Canadian climate scientists’ being told not to talk about their research to the press. Yikes.) But there are some places they just won’t, or can’t, go. They can’t mess too much with our single-payer provincial health systems. They have flirted with the idea of reopening the same-sex marriage debate, but haven’t actually done it. With a few notable exceptions, out there talking publicly about making abortion illegal. They are not trying to get provincial ministries of education to include “creation science” in their curricula. Those few who are advocating stuff like that appear to be widely recognized as wackaloons.*

        Meanwhile, our current official opposition party, the NDP, which we consider lefty-but-reasonable, is so far to the left of any US political platform that it’s hard to even imagine a place for them in the conversation…

        *Disclaimer: I live in Toronto, parts of which are probably the least conservative place on this continent; there are some MUCH more conservative areas even in Ontario, never mind rural Alberta. :P

      • Christine

        People always get confused when I call the Australian Liberal Party right wing. They are quite frightening.

  • Trollface McGee

    If the goal is to only have laws passed that are what proper men support and there is one right answer, then there’s no reason to have a vote. What you need is a dictatorship. Even if you limit the vote to Republican registered white males born in the proper parts of ‘Murika who own guns and have failed high school grammar – you still might get some dissenting votes.
    But seriously, that is one of the most disgusting arguments I’ve read in a while. Women might vote against things that men are opposed? That’s only valid if you don’t see women as fully human and therefore having the right to have their interests represented. Then again, I think that’s exactly what these people think.

    • badgerchild

      I was going to comment on the blog post but I cannot do any better than this. Maybe a little snarkier. :)

    • smrnda

      Totally. Given that these Wise Conservative Men already know the right position on every issue, they should be advocating just that. After all, I don’t think they’d have a problem with arguing for disenfranchisement of any other group whose political opinions they don’t like.

      • Dawn

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFhA_sL38c

        I’m not sure if this is the exact video I was looking for, but this “preacher” is advocating taking the vote away from women–and Sean Hannity is on the board of directors of his organization– at bondinfo.org

        Frankly, I find him disgusting enough as it is, but the fact that he takes Rush Limbaugh’s twisted lies and speaks them as truth is appalling!!

    • http://yllommormon.blogspot.com/ aletha

      Women aren’t fully human. They were made from man, so they need to be led by man. Plus they can’t think for themselves because of the uber-emotional female brainz. Besides, if they could think for themselves, why would they choose to spend their lives as a maid with benefits? Noooo…best not to let them think they are capable of more. It would disrupt the system too much.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Your comment reminded me of my grandmother complaining she just couldn’t find another maid like Alvy. Alvy was her maid for probably a good 40 years. I pointed out to her that being a maid was probably the best work Alvy could find, but things were different now, so black women had a lot better options than being a maid.

        She looked a little startled, but concurred that it made sense. I don’t think she’d ever really thought about it before like that. She’s said to me multiple times that she doesn’t mind that she never ‘made it’, but she resents that she never had the chance to try. I don’t think she realized before that how much worse black women had it even than white women.

      • http://yllommormon.blogspot.com/ aletha

        I guess it’s only natural that people are too busy looking at their lives to see clearly the lives of others.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Indeed. But that’s what consciousness-raising is for. That’s why we need people to point out intersections of privilege and, um, unprivilege(?).

        I know I’m blind a lot of the time to all sorts of thing- race/color/ethnicity is actually one of my blindest spots. I’m trying to fix that, but it’s very easy to slip into what someone on another thread called “white eyes”.

    • M.S.

      I don’t know that she outright admitted it (I stopped reading her blog because it was too painful), but honestly I got the impression she does not see women as fully human, or at the very least not at all comparable to men.

  • MNb

    Nobody always votes the way I vote, so nobody should vote but me.
    As if that will work.

    • Machintelligence

      Sounds like a plan, if you are the king. One man, one vote, and the king is the one man.

    • Mira

      One man: One Vote: the Man is the Patrician, and he had the vote.
      /bows to Terry Pratchett

      • Christine

        Havelock Vetinari, the ultimate democrat!

  • Jolie

    Even assuming women vote more to the left and men to the right…
    I have yet to hear of radical socialists making a case against male suffrage on this basis.

  • SinginDiva721

    After you posted the link to that woman’s blog, I couldn’t help but dig around a bit. Not only is she pretty batshit crazy but her husband is pastor Steven Anderson at Faithful Word Baptist Church (http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/). If that sounds familar it’s because he was openly praying for President Obama’s death back in 2009. Also, they think homosexuality should be punishible by death. These people are more dangerous than one can imagine.

    She also seems rather mean-spirited. In many of her blog posts she seems to openly mocks anyone who isn’t like her and her crazy family.

    I’d say she’s not worth the time but clearly her husband has already garnered national attention for his comments about the president. That makes me wonder what sort of influence he has over certain people.

    • Jackie

      I went to Steven Anderson’s website after the post about his wife’s blog the other day. He brags about not being educated for the ministry and mocks those who are. He says we need to do nothing but believe to be saved, not even repent of sins (which so many Christians insist on so I was impressed) but then goes on to write a bunch of stuff about all the rules you have to follow. Definitely not a logical man, and I didn’t find his wife’s writings to be that logical either. Anderson even preaches that women should not see a male gynecologist, that midwives are enough and any male who wants to see women in that setting must be sick.

      I can’t imagine he has that many followers because he’s still in a storefront church and his website hasn’t been updated in quite a while.

      So glad I can vote against the many men who do believe in this stupidity. And thankful for those of you working to educate those of us who were clueless that these type of people existed (and I was a homeschool mom – though a lone liberal in my group so people didn’t tell me much!).

      • KristinMuH

        The Andersons are also staunchly anti-vaccine, of the ‘Stupid doctors, what do THEY know?’ variety o.0 http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/physicians.html
        I remembered reading about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/17/if-you-think-anti-vaccine-loons-are-just/

        and dug up the old post. Yep, really glad Zsuzsanna isn’t voting, come to think of it.

        Edited to add:…and I hope none of their 7 beautiful children, who have done nothing to deserve medical neglect, get measles or pertussis or a bad case of chicken pox, either.

      • Christine

        I hate, HATE anti-vaxxer lies. Especially the one about the aborted foetuses used to manufacture vaccines. There was one, ONE, back in the ’60′s where a MISCARRIED foetus that was donated for the purpose, was used as a culture. Since then, they haven’t needed to make the vaccine this way.
        But of course, aborted babies. We must save the babies! Until they leave the womb. Then they can be killed by a disease that’s preventable. Or neglected. Or denied opportunity because their parents are poor.

      • Jackie

        I wonder how anti-vaccine people would feel if they lived in a 3rd World country where measles are still a big killer of children.

        I am also glad women like Zsuszanna don’t vote. What really interests me as I read more about this culture is spectulating how many.of these children will go the other way and reject the lifestyle.

      • TLC

        Have you all seen this story about the megachurch in Texas?
        http://t.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315

        BTW, now that people young and old have contracted measles and are getting reallly sick, the church is now changing its stance and telling its members to get vaccinated.

      • Jackie

        I was going to post a link to that for you – great minds think alike. I found an old link to Zsuzsanna’s blog post on vaccines but the blog post was taken down – though there are others. Maybe the publicity that church is getting will wake some ministers up. The lawsuits alone could destroy a ministry.

      • SinginDiva721

        I missed the anti-vaxer stuff. Although it’s really not surprising given her crazy views on everything else.
        I did happen to read a few of her posts on IVF. For someone who claims to be so pro-life, you’d think she’d be a little more sympathetic to those who have difficulty having children. Those were the posts that she really unleashed some hate calling them “monsters” even. It was at that point I had to stop reading before I threw my computer out the window.

      • Jackie

        Reading your post, I had to go and read some of her posts on IVF. The hatred and anger in her just leaps off the screen. Sarcasm has never been known as a way to win people to the Christian faith. Though I guess that’s not the purpose of the blog – it’s to ridicule others.

  • Eli

    “However, women voting can lead to a passing of laws that the majority of men would oppose.”

    When I first read this, all I could think was “could they be any more clear in stating that women’s wants and needs don’t matter, only men’s?” Or alternatively, “men are perfect and always know what’s best, and women are stupid?”

    The other thing I don’t get is that for people who claim so strongly that men and women are so inherently different, while also claiming that somehow doesn’t make women inferior, why do they seem to have trouble taking that thought to the conclusion that those difference lead to different perspectives that are also “equally” relevant?

    • Christine

      I think that the key here is that men are inherently more wise or something. Women are supposed to be soft and emotional, because babies need that, but it makes them unfit to make hard decisions, and that’s why men are supposed to have the final say. It’s impossible that men would become more liberal than women, because liberalism is wrong, and men are, by nature, more right. (Men might become more liberal, but that’s society in general at that point.)

      • Eli

        Oh, I know all that, I just don’t understand how they can think it makes sense to say women magically know what’s best when it comes to children, family, etc, yet not actually listen to women on even just those issues (like abortion or getting assistance from the state, since that’s what the comments focused on).

      • Lunch Meat

        “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.”

        Translation: Women deserve to be victimized and oppressed if that’s what men choose to do to them. Trying to get protection or help from the state is just cheating. Why, it’s anti-family! A man should be able to punish his wife by not feeding her if she’s not properly submissive, and to say everyone “deserves” to eat or whatever is stealing from his authority.

      • Eli

        Yes, how dare women interfere with men fulfilling their role, but men interfering with women’s? No problem!

        Of course, all this “roles” nonsense is just that, nonsense, but can they at least be internally consistent?

      • guest

        ‘Their’ kids? Do men not have kids? It’s a funny turn of phrase.

      • Alix

        An awful lot of men who think like this talk about watching their own children as “babysitting.” It’s kind of telling.

      • The_L1985

        My dad’s hardly some bastion of feminism, but he certainly knew better than that.

        When someone who later describes the family work situation in a way that includes the phrase, “I let your mother work because that’s what she wants to do,” still believes that men should be around for their kids and take them on fun outings, you have no excuse. A man who is truly strong doesn’t shirk in his duty to his kids simply because it makes him look “soft” to closed-minded people.

    • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

      When I first read this, all I could think was “could they be any more
      clear in stating that women’s wants and needs don’t matter, only men’s?”

      This. A thousand times over. “Oh no, if women vote they’re likely to vote in ways that address their needs and interests(*), and we can’t have that!”

      (*) Granted, suggesting that the Democrats stand for women’s needs and interests is giving them way too much credit much of the time.

  • Abby Normal

    I was pretty shocked to find out that this is actually a thing in “secular” circles recently. I was in the lounge at work having lunch and a bunch if these old guys were standing around griping about politics, and one of them says “You know, the worst thing that ever happened in this country was giving women the vote.” I couldn’t tell if he was trying to get a rise out of someone or if he was just senile (I’ve seen him at work and think this might be the case.)

    It came as a bit of a shock to realize “Crap, there are still guys who think this way.”

    • Ruth

      Maybe we were in the same lunch room. I heard the same thing. Isn’t this exactly what is happening in places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Ohio? Old white dudes don’t like the way people vote so they raise the barriers higher and higher in order to keep people they disagree with from exercising their right to vote?

      • Randomosity

        That was the intent behind the voter ID law they tried to pass last year in my state. It got defeated pretty soundly. They were appealing to “Those People Are Voting Fraudulently” with heavy emphasis on Those People. Having worked as an election judge with mandatory training every other year, I knew just how untrue those claims were.

      • Conuly

        Because if TV has taught us anything, it’s that fake IDs are really extremely difficult to obtain.

        Not that I believe that 1000 poor people voting fraudulently can do even half the damage that might be done by one very wealthy person fucking with the results more directly.

      • phantomreader42

        Think of all the tactics that could be used to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election. How many could be prevented with voter IDs? Maybe one or two, out of at least a dozen. And only the ways that are the most difficult and expensive to pull off, with the highest risk of being caught, for the least possible payoff.

      • Conuly

        That’s my theory as well. If there is voter fraud, it’s coming from the same people behind voter disenfranchisement.

      • KristinMuH

        I didn’t know both of you worked with my father-in-law!

    • Anonymouse

      Ann Coulter said women shouldn’t have the vote, and the right-wing followers have been parroting it ever since.

      • Whirlwitch

        I bet she’d get upset if she herself was stopped from voting.

      • phantomreader42

        Although there are actually grounds to stop her from voting, as I recall she’s been caught fraudulently voting in multiple districts in the same election…

  • John Kruger

    There are a lot of conservatives that are not at all shy about supporting voter suppression. It blows my mind. It is not even specifically a religious thing, take a look at the “Uncle Tom” atheist Ann Coulter spout off the very same idea.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDg9t5M5dI

  • Anat

    I don’t have a source, but many years ago I read that in most countries during the first few elections immediately after the enfranchisement of women the outcomes were more conservative than before, with the exception of Italy, where the votes of women increased the power of the socialists. If true then there was a time when women were more conservative than men.

    • Slow Learner

      UK, up to 2001 (see my comment below). I’m not sure when it started though.

    • CarysBirch

      I’m actually reading a novel set around the time that women’s suffrage was first enacted in Britain, and the Conservative characters are all pro because basically housewives were the most conservative group there was.

      Granted I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the novel on this point, but it was my first thought when I read this!

  • Ruth

    I love that video, Libby Anne. thanks so much for the repost.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The case against allowing women to have a say in their lives, their country and…Lots of other big things…Is that they don’t tend to vote for the people who want to Fuck them over.

    I can’t even begin to process the selfishness involved in this. I can’t make myself that important. Or even anywhere near it.

  • Angela

    I loved that Bad Romance video… and yet I couldn’t help but notice that not a single woman of color was represented. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

    • The_L1985

      It is pretty sad. On the other hand, since black men were still legally barred from voting in many places thanks to Jim Crow, the struggles of black women to vote were strongly tied into the civil rights movements of the 1960′s, and weren’t so closely tied to the struggles of the (mostly white) suffragettes.

      I don’t think this was as much of a case of history being whitewashed as it is of the unpleasant facts of early 20th-century racism and how much worse it really was at the time.

      • Gillianren

        Also, a lot of women were part of the abolition movement and felt kind of screwed over when they were told that the suffrage of black men was more important than the suffrage of women of any colour.

  • Gail

    You know who else consistently votes to the left? Catholics. Sure, there are some conservative Catholics of the Santorum variety, but if conservatives want to silence everyone who doesn’t vote like them, they should be opposing Catholic suffrage. And Jewish suffrage, actually. And minority suffrage (although I think the voter ID laws were basically a way to limit minority suffrage). If they could find a way for only white Christian males to vote, they would.

    The more I think about the argument that women should leave voting to men, the angrier I get. My husband’s or father’s vote is supposed to count for me. This fails to consider that a) my political opinions might differ from my father’s or husband’s and b) I don’t have a husband, and my father is dead. I guess as a wife or adult daughter you might have a tiny chance of influencing a man’s political opinions, but this policy leaves widows and orphans with even less voice than other women.

  • sam

    If these wild females (let’s not say women, they’ll feel human!) actually submitted to their husbands every whim, why wouldn’t they wait for his “guidance” to tell them who/what to vote for? Then he gets two votes!

    • CarysBirch

      *sputters with rage*

      I really do hate the “female” thing.

  • http://www.angelsparrow.com valarltd

    Last Election, I documented five instances, some from mainstream Republican pundits, criticizing women’s rights to vote. Links are on this blog post: http://valarltd.livejournal.com/1673391.html I also wrote about the connection to Mary Pride and the comments by the Republican candidates on birth control. http://valarltd.livejournal.com/1554472.html

    My guess is that sometime around the 2032 elections, we’re going to be fighting for our voting rights

    Men grow more conservative as they get older and worry about what they have being taken from them. Women grow more liberal as they bump their noses on sexist structures.

    • Miss_Beara

      Exactly. As they are already trying to chip voting rights away from citizens, I could imagine that they will try to do that with women in the future. Must be a mother, must be married, must vote the same way as your father or husband… something like that.

  • TLC

    “The conservative case (against women voting) is that women lean hard to the left.”

    This person hasn’t met the conservative women I know. He should see what they’ve been posting on Facebook! Has he read Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter?

    In addition, among the conservative Christian couples I know, the women echo what their mates believe. I don’t think I know any conservative men whose wives/partners are liberal, and vice-versa.

    An extreme example: I offered to help a friend at my former church paint her dining room because she had 4 little kids and needed extra hands. And she lived near me, so I wanted to get to know her better.

    During the entire time we painted, we had on conservative talk radio. The highlight of the day was Rush Limbaugh’s show bashing Michael J. Fox for his testimony on stem cell research, and Rush saying Michael was faking his Parkinson’s symptoms. Eventually, this led to a very tentative discussion of politics, beliefs, etc., with this woman stating, “I just don’t see how you can be a Christian and be a Democrat!”

    The best part: She eventually admitted that she did not read a single political blog or news site. All of her information came from her husband. “He reads all these things, then tells me what they say.”

    **headdesk** **headdesk** **headdesk** **headdesk** **headdesk**

    This gets back to a point raised by others on the blog post last week: If conservatives keep their women from voting because they’re afraid their women will have an attack of “the vapors” or something and won’t vote the way their men want them to, so be it, We liberals, male AND female, will be happy to make up for their votes.

    • Gillianren

      My dad was conservative, and my mom is liberal. Mom says they never discussed politics.

    • Lyric

      The highlight of the day was Rush Limbaugh’s show bashing Michael J. Fox
      for his testimony on stem cell research, and Rush saying Michael was
      faking his Parkinson’s symptoms. Eventually, this led to a very
      tentative discussion of politics, beliefs, etc., with this woman
      stating, “I just don’t see how you can be a Christian and be a
      Democrat!”

      I once knew a very fundamentalist woman who didn’t see how you could be Christian and be a Republican. Her logic was: Christ is Lord. Christ said to care for the poor. Christ did not say, “Unless they’re welfare moms,” or “So long as they can prove they’re looking for work.”

      I disagreed with her about virtually bloody everything, but damn, was she honest in her convictions. And, funnily enough, no longer a fundamentalist.

  • Ismenia

    If the number of men who supported abortion vastly outweighed the women the blogger would probably say that this is because abortion benefits men because it allows them to avoid responsibility for pregnancy and then say that women need abortion to be banned to protect them from such men. I’ve seen conservative writers use the fact that abortion is also beneficial to men as an argument against as if those in favour will change their minds at that because we really just want to spite men.

  • trinity91

    it is ridiculous that this country has moved so far right that we are having to talk about this again. The 1800′s telegraphed. They want their legislators back.

  • Nathaniel

    These people don’t want democracy, not really. They want a monarchy with a God king who uses his divine right to impose moral behavior across the land.

    These people will always exist, and democracy is always far too easy to lose.

    • Gillianren

      It’s funny, too, because if you actually read the Bible, God wasn’t all that fond of kings himself.

      • Jessica Boone

        True that. I mean I can’t remember where exactly, but he overthrows like five kings in a row because they were being tyrants.

      • Gillianren

        I mean, read the bits about choosing Saul. God was fairly annoyed by the whole thing.

  • smrnda

    The guy’s case is that since women don’t seem to be conservative enough, they shouldn’t vote, but this guy has done *NOTHING* *NO*THING* to actually make a case that conservative policy is actually better. Perhaps he assumes he’s talking to a bunch of guys who would just make the same assumption.

    If he thinks that women don’t have informed reasons why they *don’t* ascribe to these positions, then he’s willfully ignorant since you can find mountains of well-researched writing BY WOMEN (and even by men) showing that the conservative case isn’t necessarily better for women. (Isn’t even so for all men.) The idea that women are making choices on emotion and not fact is laughable in face of how much actual research women have done into issues that affect them. If anything, it’s conservative women who are high on gut instincts and low on reasons.

    • Jolie

      Interestingly enough, in my academic field, I’ve often heard the “women tend to vote differently than men” as an argument for measures like all-women shortlists or affirmative action quotas in public functions; with the aim of approaching, as much as possible, a de facto parity (50% men 50% women) in elected bodies/legislatures. I’d love to point out staunch conservatives to those articles :)))

  • M.S.

    I found the blog you referenced shocking. Honestly, I am apparently naïve, but I didn’t realize women’s suffrage was even up for debate in 2013. Wow. I can’t believe women have this kind of opinion. My only hope is these women don’t have daughters…. but even if they have only sons, imagine the misogyny….

  • Theo Darling

    “HOW DARE WOMEN VOTE IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST.”

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    They were happy for us to vote when they thought we’d vote the way they wanted us to vote. Now that they know we don’t, it’s all HOW DARE WE.

    I’ve been saying for a year or two now that I fully expect the next big crazy-fundie trend to be trying to curtail or limit women’s right to vote. Looks like we’re on schedule.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X