[scorpion]

(02-01-2013 12:42 AM)j r Wrote:  

A couple of things.

First, the enlightenment comment wasn't really about women's suffrage as much as it was about Ovid's claim that the family is the building block of society. I happen to believe that the family is an incredibly important, perhaps invaluable, social institution, but I don't think it should trump the individual's right to self-determination. The basic idea behind the enlightenment was that the world is an ordered place that conforms to a set of reasonable and understandable principles. And since all men have the capacity for reason, all men are capable of understanding how the world works and all men should be free to pursue their won freedom so long as it doesn't conflict with other people's freedom. Now I suppose you could argue that women are incapable of reason and, therefore, shouldn't have individual rights, but that's a very difficult argument to make in any substantive way.

The problem with focusing on the individual at the expense of the family is that individuals do not spring into existence ex nihilo. They emerge from a coupling of two existing individuals, and the history of the human race has demonstrated that the health and long-term prospects of the individual are maximized if he or she is born into a strong, healthy family environment. Strong families also act to create strong communities, which in turn further nurture the individual, creating a feedback loop of healthy individuals, healthy families and healthy communities. A myopic focus on the individual actually results in the increased power of a third force - the state - since the individual, ultimately helpless on his or her own without the traditional support structures provided by family and community - will desperately look to the state for assistance. This is the entire basis of Marxism - the weakening of the family and a corresponding strengthening of the state.

It could therefore be argued that in order to ultimately preserve the freedom of the individual from encroachment by the state, the focus should NOT be on the individual himself, but on the family structure that nurtures the individual. In this regard, the benefits of limited self-determination gained by women through suffrage would probably not outweigh the overall damage done to the family unit, and one would expect the government to expand over time as the family gradually weakened.

Has this been the case? Has female suffrage diminished the health of the family unit and resulted in the consequent encroachment of the state on individual rights?

Compare the power of the U.S. federal government over its citizens circa 1920 against that of 2013. You tell me.

(02-01-2013 12:42 AM)j r Wrote:  

Second, I do think that enlightenment and women's suffrage are not so distinct at all. The former leads directly to the latter as sure as day leads to night. That's the way political freedom works. It spreads. At one point there were absolute monarchs and everyone else was subject to their authority. Then the nobility won rights from the king and the bourgeoisie won rights from the nobility and so on and so forth until you have universal suffrage.

Here's a concrete example of what I mean. Thomas Jefferson writes that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... life, liberty" blah blah blah. At the time "all men" really meant certain white men. Two hundred years later Martin Luther King references Jefferson in the "I Have a Dream" speech and says that he is there to "cash a check" on Jefferson's promise that all men are created equal. Again, that's how political freedom works. Once it's out of the bag, it's out of the bag.

As you correctly pointed out, suffrage was originally reserved for white, property owning men. This was eventually extended to encompass all white men, then men of all races, and finally all women as well. But this is not universal suffrage. In fact, it entirely ignores one of the largest constituencies in the country: children. You may think I'm joking, but I'm entirely serious. Is there any good reason for why children should not have the vote under your line of argument? It would seem to be the natural progression of things. Children are people, and citizens. And in some regard they have more at stake than any adult, given that their extended lifespan means they will have to live with the consequences of government policy longer than most voting adults. So why is it not reasonable for children to have the vote?

The question seems absurd on its face, the answer too obvious: we don't let children vote because they are children. The corollary being that, because they are children, they can't possibly understand the affairs of the state due to their limited reasoning ability. Surely you see where I'm going with this by now. This is the exact same rationale that was used to deny the vote to minorities and women in the past.

So by this logic, the Enlightenment, a movement based on the primacy of reason and the scientific method, has led us to the conclusion that children should direct the affairs of state. Do you accept or reject that notion? If you accept it, then you are philosophically consistent at least. However, if you reject it, then you must temper your enlightened idealism with a dash of realism, and agree with Ovid that some limitation of suffrage is in the best interest of society - you would just differ on where the line should be drawn. He, with women, and you with children.