[IRTdenialist]

Here's some interesting quotes and arguments against women's suffrage. It may not be a popular opinion, but I really do feel that many of the ill's of modern society can be traced to women's involvement in matters of state.

Quote:

There were of course many people who opposed the idea of women’s suffrage. They were known as the ‘Antis’. Here are some of the reasons they gave:

1. Women would be corrupted by politics and chivalry would die out
2. If women became involved in politics, they would stop marrying, having children, and the human race would die out
3. Women were emotional creatures, and incapable of making a sound political decision.

These reasons may seem ludicrous to us, but at the time were taken seriously by a wide cross-section of women as well as men.
Diane Atkinson, Votes for Women (1988)
A school textbook from the 1980s

Quote:

Because women already have the municipal vote, and are eligible for membership of most local authorities. These bodies deal with questions of housing, education, care of children, workhouses and so forth, all of which are peculiarly within a woman's sphere. Parliament, however, has to deal mainly with the administration of a vast Empire, the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and with questions of peace and war, which lie outside the legitimate sphere of woman's influence.

Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of con­tributing.

Because women are not capable of full citizenship, for the simple reason that they are not available for purposes of national and Imperial defence. All government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing.

Because there is little doubt that the vast majority of women have no desire for the vote.

Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.

Because the United Kingdom is not an isolated state, but the administrative and governing centre of a system of colonies and also of dependencies. The effect of introducing a large female ele­ment into the Imperial electorate would undoubtedly be to weaken the centre of power in the eyes of these dependent millions.

Because past legislation in Parliament shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men.

Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.

Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country.

Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct com­petition with men.
Grace Saxon Mills, writing in the years before 1914

The first quote really rings true.

[Ovid]

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

[IRTdenialist]

(01-31-2013 12:17 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

You know something bro, I couldn't have said it better myself. That's some well articulated shizzle my friend!

[j r]

(01-31-2013 12:17 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

So you don't believe in individual rights?

[IRTdenialist]

(01-31-2013 01:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 12:17 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

So you don't believe in individual rights?

Women should not have a voice in policy making. It's the female/feminist inspired policies that are making the world go to shit. Just my opinion though.

[j r]

(01-31-2013 01:11 PM)IRTdenialist Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 01:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

So you don't believe in individual rights?

Women should not have a voice in policy making. It's the female/feminist inspired policies that are making the world go to shit. Just my opinion though.

Slavery, Indian Wars, WW1, these are things that happened in American history before the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. How does your model account for that?

[Ovid]

(01-31-2013 01:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 12:17 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

So you don't believe in individual rights?

"Individual rights" is a loaded and vague term. Do I believe women and men should all have the "individual right" not to get shot when they venture out on a public street? Sure. Do I believe women should have the "right" to cook me a meal? Sure. In some more volatile parts of the world, the former is hardly guaranteed, and in the USA today, the latter is seriously threatened. I don't believe the equality mantra that has been the propaganda angle of choice for the last couple hundred years whenever anyone wants to overthrow their government, and so I don't take that principle of radical equality to its logical conclusion and believe that every individual ought to have a "right" to put a piece of paper in a box. (FWIW, America's founders didn't, either.) Women occupying their natural role in society have no business playing an active role in the affairs of state. This was regarded as common sense for all of human history up until the 19th century, when the erroneous principles established in the previous century began to really take root and start the slow process of undoing society.

[christpuncher]

Nice quotes. Ultimately the world will revert to it's natural state. The countries that continue to nourish procreation and masculine energy (not sure which) will flourish and the others will fade away / be invaded.

The Romans were a feminist, advanced, relatively peaceful society. Eventually they fell. History will repeat itself with certainty. Anyone who thinks that this time it's different just because we have some box on our desk with blinking lights that screams about equality every time it's turned on is delusional, and not in tune with human nature.

Once all this technology growth settles down people's focus will shift back to more basic, natural pursuits (like happiness) and the world will convert again to a male-centric hierarchy.

[j r]

(01-31-2013 01:36 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 01:04 PM)j r Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 12:17 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

I don't believe in women's suffrage. The family, not the individual, is the building block of society. Therefore, men, as the heads of families and the representatives of those families in worldly affairs, should exercise the right to vote. The primary purpose of women is for motherhood and the domestic duties which accompany it. This is undeniable when we consider that for other duties, e.g. business, manual labor, farming, fighting, etc. men are more suited, and these are all external to the home. Since a woman's fundamental sphere of influence should not exceed those four walls, she should not have a say in matters of government and public policy.

So you don't believe in individual rights?

"Individual rights" is a loaded and vague term. Do I believe women and men should all have the "individual right" not to get shot when they venture out on a public street? Sure. Do I believe women should have the "right" to cook me a meal? Sure. In some more volatile parts of the world, the former is hardly guaranteed, and in the USA today, the latter is seriously threatened. I don't believe the equality mantra that has been the propaganda angle of choice for the last couple hundred years whenever anyone wants to overthrow their government, and so I don't take that principle of radical equality to its logical conclusion and believe that every individual ought to have a "right" to put a piece of paper in a box. (FWIW, America's founders didn't, either.) Women occupying their natural role in society have no business playing an active role in the affairs of state. This was regarded as common sense for all of human history up until the 19th century, when the erroneous principles established in the previous century began to really take root and start the slow process of undoing society.

There's nothing loaded or vague about the term individual rights. They are fairly well defined concepts. If you say the family is the relevant social unit where rights are concerned and that a man should have dominion over his wife, then you're saying that women shouldn't have individual rights.

If you feel that women ought to be relegated to a particular role in society, that's fine. I don't agree, but I'm not trying to argue you out of your position. However, your argument is full of logical fallacies; the most prominent of which is the appeal to nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

It feels like you want to argue for a certain type of society, but you're not ready to fully acknowledge the sort of society that is. Basically, you want a per-enlightenment society.

[scorpion]

The Enlightenment had nothing to do with women's suffrage, they are two totally distinct movements.

You basically have to toss out the entire history of the United States from 1776 - 1920 if you want to classify everything pre-women's suffrage as "pre-enlightenment". Obviously there was a quite a bit of progress made during that period, so it's a little silly to accuse Ovid of advocating a return to the pre-Enlightenment.

That would be like if I put forward an argument against Facebook and you accused me of being anti-internet, or even anti-electricity.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Women should enjoy voting while they have it. They won't for long.

Having studied the plight of the Native American, the ONE factor that caused them to lose their entire country was the population growth of the other side (i.e. the British). When questioned how they lost their land when they were better fighters and knew the terrain, one of the chiefs said something like "We kept fighting and winning --- but they just kept coming and coming and won by the numbers."

Today there are something like four Muslim children born for every non-Muslim. Because of the sheer numbers, Sharia Law is already being enforced in sections of England. It's only a matter of time until this comes to the states because of population growth. We won't have to engage in any "war on terror" to have Sharia Law here. They just have to breed more. My feeling is we'll suspend Federal and State law for pockets of the country and that will just expand.

And when it does and Sharia becomes more trendy, Western women will WANT to become part of their culture. This is already happening in the UK, with "British career women" becoming Muslim (see this).

This is NOT an anti-Muslim diatribe in the least. Please don't mistake this for bigotry or idiotic "war on terror" chest-thumping. It's a statement of demographics and who is breeding more.

If I'm judging anyone here, it's Western feminists for helping to create a society in which women no longer breed, and thereby have forsaken their main biological role. Feminism took Western women out of the home and into office and made sure they reproduced less. So its "triumph" will be its undoing. Women should enjoy voting now, because it won't last forever.

The media is way too politically correct to come out and say this. Besides, as much as American women mouth off about being "strong," if the media actually placed the fate of the country at their feet they'd fold like cheap card tables.

[j r]

(01-31-2013 11:31 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The Enlightenment had nothing to do with women's suffrage, they are two totally distinct movements.

You basically have to toss out the entire history of the United States from 1776 - 1920 if you want to classify everything pre-women's suffrage as "pre-enlightenment". Obviously there was a quite a bit of progress made during that period, so it's a little silly to accuse Ovid of advocating a return to the pre-Enlightenment.

That would be like if I put forward an argument against Facebook and you accused me of being anti-internet, or even anti-electricity.

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.

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.

[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.

[j r]

(02-01-2013 01:55 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(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.

Scorpion, I don't think that you're joking, but I do think that both of those arguments are text book examples of reductio ad absurdum. If 500 years from now, the human species has so evolved that 15-year olds have the intellectual and emotional capacity to make reasonable and rational decisions, then they should be free to vote. We're not there yet, so i support 18 as the sensible cutoff. If you want me to accept that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, you're going to have to show me some objectively verifiable way of demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of women don't have reasonable and rational capacities.

Also, you're individual rights leads to Marxism quote is completely ahistorical. America started as a liberal democracy (classically liberal, not liberal in the leftist sense) and 240 years later America is much more liberal, but still not marxist or socialist (despite what the Tea Party claims). Look at the rest of the world. China and Russia were absolute monarchies and what happened? They both had violent revolutions and became communist states. European countries had various forms of revolution and reform and ended up, for the most part, as social democracies with lots of government intervention in people's lives. So out of all of these examples, America, the country that embraced full democracy first, is still the least socialist.

[IRTdenialist]

Some great arguments against womens suffrage. I respect the counter arguments that have been given here but I will stick to my guns. Women's 'rights', women meddling in policy making and political correctness have been and will continue to be the most damaging things that have happened to society in the last 100 years and for the foreseeable future.

[esperar]

Not letting chicks vote is no worse than not letting children vote.

[IRTdenialist]

(02-03-2013 06:05 AM)esperar Wrote:  

Not letting chicks vote is no worse than not letting children vote.

Simple and to the point, I like it!