Should Women Be Allowed To Vote?

10 Comments

1. I appreciate your unique response to the question(s) which will hopefully get people thinking in different ways. To ask whether or not women should vote only reveals that the questioner has embraced Enlightenment premises which obviate viable solutions to our modern dilemma.

   I’ll offer the ‘take’ of my favorite Romanian: Corneliu Codreanu.

   “[People’s understanding of] Dictatorships presuppose the will of a single man forcibly imposed upon the will of the other subjects in a state. … When this will imposes itself by constraint and cruelty, then the dictatorship is tyranny. But when a nation … approves and deliriously applauds the chief’s measures, it means there is a perfect accord between the chief’s will and that of the people. Moreover, they mesh so perfectly that there no longer exist two wills. There is only one: the will of the nation, the expression of which is the chief. p. 242. It never has been heard, nor will it ever be heard, that one can produce enthusiasm and fervor by force. … If these regimes be not dictatorships or democracies … they represent a new form of government, sui generis, in the modern states … creating a state of unanimous illumination which is encountered only in the great religious revivals. This phenomenon could rightly be called a state of national ecumenicity. p. 243. [The leader is no longer a ‘master’, a ‘dictator’, who does as he pleases, who leads ‘according to his whims’. … He is guided not by individual or collective interests, but by the interests of the immortal nation which have penetrated the conscience of the people.” p. 94. – Prison Notes].
    

   Corneliu Codreanu, ‘For My Legionaries’

   • Great source as always German Confederate. I am excited to look up this one especially.

     Recognizing the ‘Enlightenment premise’ is a great way to start looking at this question. And a great start to almost all possibilities of voting for high-political office. It is only since the Enlightenment that this option has even feasibly been a consideration-Man or woman. It is wild how deep modernity digs its nails into us. We all (or at least “most” of us) still likely cling to aspects of the modern lie in our blind spots. Hard to see without others shining the light on them, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Hopefully this article will assist some others with that.

2. This is the first article I have ever read arguing that I shouldn’t be able to vote that both: 1) had an actual argument to it; and 2) was respectful of women throughout. I don’t agree with you, but thank you!

   When you say “family voting” I think you just mean the man votes. Family voting would make more sense to me if the mother had a veto power or something. I think many trad types today have no clue what things used to be like. One example: My extremely smart, capable, hard working, and pious grandmother was forced in the first days of grieving her husband to go down to the courthouse and prove she was fit to raise her children. That was the policy of the state of North Carolina at the. Widows were assumed incompetent until they proved otherwise to the state government. That kind of thing can easily happen when only men can vote. At the time this happened, women could vote, but there were still a lot of laws on the books that made no sense in this way. In any event, Grandma passed NC’s smug little motherhood test and went on to run a tobacco farm, sell an insurance agency, and finish raising her children, all on her own. You want her to no longer be able to vote? Historically, denying the vote to all widows means orphans are cheated of their inheritance by greedy men. Some one is appointed to be the widow’s guardian and the next thing you know, he’s sold the farm, pocketed the money “for his trouble” and sent the children to a home.

   I do have some sympathy for having a family vote for young families, but widows and grandmothers should have a vote, assuming they have skin in the game.

   All these theories that rest on how very sinful women are conveniently ignore how very sinful men are. Both sexes are fallen and fallen badly.

   My own idea, not developed at all, just taken out and pondered from time to time, is that we need a representational system that starts extremely local. For urbanites, you could go back to something like a precinct system, where that’s the only level where most people cast votes. Say a city block elects a representative to an intermediate group that elects the city council and then the city council elects the mayor. The point here is that we need to be able to find our representative and actually know him or her — chew them out in person if need be. Voting for people we only know through their canned speeches and PR releases means voting for God knows who. It would have to work differently for rural areas, but it would still be something like you only vote for the person who represents you at the lowest level, which should likely be set at the very tribal number of 150 responsible adults.

   Anyway, I will continue to ponder what you’ve said here. In my old age, I’m rethinking everything and so this article was very useful to me as I do so. Thank you again.

   • Hey Nell, thanks for the comment. It’s always good to have our preconceived beliefs and assumptions challenged (and that goes double-so for me as a public writer). So always appreciate hearing alternative sides. Voting systems are a complicated mess, and trying to sort them out into something that can 1) sustain and 2) exhibit some level of fairness, is incredibly difficult. This is actually one of the largest hiccups when I wrote the Enclave book, no matter how I tackled this subject, it did not come out how I wanted it too. Still hasn’t, really.

     If there is one part we certainly agree on, it is local accountability. What you said here is dead on:

     Say a city block elects a representative to an intermediate group that elects the city council and then the city council elects the mayor. The point here is that we need to be able to find our representative and actually know him or her — chew them out in person if need be.

     No matter how that is done, whether through election or oversight, the local ability over rulers to “hold their feet to the fire” is essential.

     Thank you as well for your thoughts, and God bless.

3. I believe women voting accelerates societal destruction. On the other hand-

   The ultimate white |
   pill on white women

   -right wing
   1. the vast majority of white women are most attracted to their own race (their attraction is more ethnocentric than any other race or gender group)

   2016 Election by Race and Sex

   women love White Men
   2. white women are sexually conservative: 87% of white women between the ages of 15 to 44 are either virgins or in the past year they have not had sex / only had sex with one person

   3. white women are racially loyal in marriage: 93% Of. white women marry white men (more loyal than any a res other race)
   4. the majority of white female voters voted for Trump
   5. among Gen Z, 70% of white females support Trump
   6. combining facts 1 to 3, the conclusion is that white women rarely have sex with non-white men; they marry white, and before marriage they have few partners and the vast majority of those are white; in other words race mixing and cuck porn is a lie and more of a rare exception than a rule

   • Interesting data. Thanks for the comment, Shawn.

4. How about a second franchise for net taxpayers? This would exclude not just welfare recipients but also government employees, at least at that level of governance. Maybe a third franchise for those putting their life at peril for their fellow citizens; such as soldiers, police officers, firefighters, etc. This shouldn’t apply to those not actually at risk, and few people would be able to qualify for both the second and third franchises. Even resident foreigners could qualify for the second franchise, but not the first franchise.

   • I’ve written up on that option a few times: Specific buckets that get a weighted vote. I usually argue for a defense bucket, a business owner bucket, and then a net taxpayer/family bucket. A lot of historical precedence for this kind of setup. But it goes outside the primary scope of the questions in this article, so I didn’t mention it. But a “defense” bucket for soldiers and certain other groups should certainly be considered no matter the system.

     At the root of the question surrounding how to organize a vote, it depends heavily on the political system being used. Voting systems are complicated and depend heavily on the political system they are housed within. That matters more than the voting system itself, usually.

5. Your take on divorced men shows your ignorance on a subject that is often misunderstood, especially in the Church. You WANT the vote of divorced men who fought to keep their family together. It takes two to stay together, one to leave. If a man makes it through what I think is one of the most traumatic experiences he can experience, and still clings to God… that man will be wiser, stronger and more able to discern both God’s will and the traps of Satan.

   Satan has absolutely poisoned the family and wives are being targeted especially hard. Within the so called churches across the nation, Christian women are filing for divorce at monstrous rates. There is a fleshly spirit working against wives at the moment and you will begin to see Christian families destroyed en masse by women leading other women down this path of self, flesh and cold heartedness. IN SECRET, FROM WITHIN THE CHURCH ITSELF.

   Average folks hear of the wife leaving, especially in the church and it is usually assumed to be the husband’s fault.

   “If he’d have been in line with God’s will, a real man, met her needs, not an emotional abuser, narcissist etc, she’d have surely not left!”

   This is a bunch of crap. I have seen men accept full blame after the woman leaves and immediately, somehow falls into a well established relationship. Literal adultery can happen and the wife will say it was his fault for not meeting her emotional needs. Men will believe it and tear themselves apart. She will continue to attend the church, never once questioned about the legitimacy of her claims.

   Meanwhile, no modern woman will ever allow herself to be a villain in her own story. No accountability will be taken.

   Few will step up and approach a dad going through divorce to give the least bit of support or encouragement.

   A man who desperately fought to keep her from leaving is not a divorcee… he’s an abandoned husband and his wife is an adulterer, Plain and simple. But don’t let us vote ?

   I still have my family. Just not my wife.

   • shows your ignorance on a subject

     Yawn. As usual with the mens rights people—Starting with insults. That is always a strong and wise way to change someone’s opinion.

     You WANT the vote of divorced men

     Absolutely not, are you insane? You think we should prioritize people who have failed in their marriage roles? People that cannot even lead their own household and by God’s definition couldn’t even lead a congregation as pastor? No, no, and hell no.

     You want a vote, get remarried and do better choosing next time.

     who fought to keep their family together

     I am talking about a functioning voting system here, not your unique, such a big deal, super special case that deserves an exception to the rule. Yet you come here to whine about your exception instead of thinking of the bigger picture.

     Whenever anyone brings up a topic like a voting system, or a political system, or any kind of system, the main arguments against it always stem from “Well I am special and deserve a special exception to the rule”. But the reality is no, you do not. The rule is there because in general it is better to have it than to not.

     And if we would include “good” divorced men, how would this actually be enforced? Are we going to go around and monitor every single divorced man to see if he “still clings to God” and audit every divorcee to see if that party was not truly at fault? You are thinking like a gamma, always worried about your own special situation, rather than the system and culture as a whole, which is what I am addressing.

     Average folks hear of the wife leaving, especially in the church and it is usually assumed to be the husband’s fault. […]

     And here was the real giveaway. You’re not interested in building/analyzing a voting system that would actually function for a society, you’re just whining about the mens rights stuff. Which is not the point of this article in any capacity. Nor this website.

     Your entire comment is a similar argument that convicts use to argue about voting today. “I was wrongly convicted” or “the laws weren’t fair in MY SPECIAL COOKIE experience”. But guess what? In general, felons should not vote. It is just the way it is and must be. The same goes for the divorced. The simple reality is people that cannot maintain their own marriage should not be directing society. Some exceptions of good, faithful partners who got the rough end of the stick will be harmed by this, but it is a necessary provision to not allow hordes of failures of both genders to be voting.

     Don’t like it? Then get remarried and don’t let that one fail.