This is the first in a series on rights, power, voting, and utility.
Part 2: The "Right" to Vote, and Utility
Part 3: Why Do We Need Democracy?
Call me old fashioned, but women voters? What planet are we on? Beam me back up to the mothership.
As Dean Esmay notes, it's been 83 years, and what have women really done for us? Prohibition -- good move. That worked well. Oh sure, it was ratified before women could vote, but it was their idea. Let's see... that's pretty much it.
Let's be serious here though and really consider. Are we as a nation better off having given women the power to vote? I agree that from a moral perspective it was the right thing to do, but I don't think the issue is that black and white; there were substantial groups of women opposed to granting women suffrage.
If you told me, Michael, the country could have a 20% higher standard of living if we were to go back in time and start again as a monarchy, I'd say "sign me up!" I think most people would be willing to trade their vote away for a substantial salary increase. Any individual would sell their vote for the right price, so it's not unreasonable to speculate on the costs and benefits of women's suffrage.
Each individual woman has more freedom than she would otherwise have had, and each individual man has less power than he would otherwise have had -- at least as far as voting goes. But women tend to vote socially and economically liberal, so it's possible that men have more freedom now than they would have had if women had not been allowed to vote, simply because women may have voted for more civil liberties than men alone would have. However, it's also possible that women's liberal voting tendencies have reduced our freedoms, considering that modern "liberals" aren't really all that concerned with maintaining liberty. Similar hypotheticals can be set up with regard to the economy.
It seems likely that if women had not been given the power to vote, more conservative/libertarian laws would have been enacted than actually have been. Women are big supporters of the War on Drugs, for example, and big social spenders. Therefore, those who hold conservative/libertarian positions would probably have a government more to their liking if women had not been given suffrage.
I'm not a historian, but I play one on TV, and if you look through history you'll realize that the position of women in America is really an aberration. Through out every culture, through out all time, women have never been as free and powerful as they are in the United States right now. In an absolute sense, giving women equal social power was an act of indulgence for men; women are physically weaker than men, and in might-makes-right societies that weakness translates directly into social subjugation. It's quite reasonably arguable that the power of women in America is against the "natural order" of the world, and it would be difficult for any materialist to disagree.
I expect that most people who are reading this believe that women's suffrage is a Good Thing. I hope that none of my female readers have taken offense to this topic. Even though I agree that women have God-given equality with men, I'm not convinced that giving them equal social power has resulted in a net gain for society -- or either men or women separately.
Please leave your opinion. Your concept of "gain" may be purely monetary (what we might normally call "standard of living"); it may include freedoms and liberties aside from the power to vote itself; it may encompass foreign policy; it may involve deep philisophical or religious issues. In any event, please define what you consider to be "gain", and then tell us if we made the right decision.
Update:
Continued in "The 'Right' to Vote, and Utility".
I'd like to point out that, as Mrs. du Toit and I have been saying, a mistake we keep making is to equate "the vote" with "power" and "freedom."
Historically, women have actually always been extremely powerful in America. Well before they had the vote they were powerful, and to this day it's still not clear that they became more powerful as a result of voting. The women who opposed the 19th amendment were often very strong, smart, and independent-minded, and they argued that voting would only degrade women's position in society.
Look at your Bill of Rights: women had every one of those rights in this country long before the 19th amendment. They also had the right of property and, even as today, they had most of the economic power in most families, because they made most of the spending decisions for the family. Just as they do today in most families. (Check your own. You may be startled to realize it, but it's probably true.)
I think one sexist notion that refuses to die is the notion that political power = personal power. And I think the raging debate over on my site (thanks for the link, by the way) is being caused in large part because people are conflating the two.
You're trolling either for hits or castration.
Interesting argument, not that I'm endorsing it in any way that could turn up on my permanent record.
Yeah Dean, I agree. I saw your first post on the topic last night just as I was going to bed and I wrote my own; I'll have to go through your comments section to see what everyone has already said on the matter. I'd like to get an opinion from an economist's perspective.
Also, it's amazing to note that I feel late to the table on the issue, even you you only wrote about it two days ago. I love the blogosphere.
Hey, I bet slavery'd increase our standard of living too! Woohoo! I'm first in line!
I know you wanted me to comment, but my brilliant female mind is too busy fighting the war on drugs and other social concerns you value so highly! Maybe I'll run some numbers on "net gain" and we can see whether or not liberating women was "worth it."
And right after that, I'll get to those oatmeal chocolate-chip cookies you apparently truly thought I would send you.
Hugs 'n kisses,
Candace
Actually, slavery doesn't make a lot of economic sense, no. And it's quite different. Thanks for the purely emotional response.
You're welcome!
I just have never thought it appropriate to think about civil rights in terms of economics. Don't think I ever will.
I understand your natural reaction, but don't think of economics as only dealing with money. Think of it as dealing with "utility". Sometimes utility means money, but often it means freedom, love, the right to vote, whatever.
People put value on things, and it's reasonable to look at how they do it. I tried to illustrate the fact that people would put monetary value on their right to vote by hypothesizing that if you offered a random guy on the street a 20% raise in exchange for his right to vote, he'd probably take it. That may or may not be true, but everyone has a price; if not 20%, then 100%, or 1000%.
Similarly, it's reasonable to ask whether or not giving women the power to vote has had a net cost or a net benefit to society as a whole. Does the moral benefit automatically trump every other possible consideration? I don't think it does. Most people don't vote at all, which indicates that they don't value their power very highly.
It's also very likely that women have made our country more leftist than it would otherwise have been. I'm pretty confident that we spend more on social programs than we would if women could not vote. Therefore, it's quite likely (if my conservative/libertarian political views are right) that everyone in our nation would be better off (in some ways) if women had not been given the power to vote.
So, would those some ways out-weigh the (in my opinion) moral good that was done by giving women the power to vote? That's the question I'm asking.
I'd like to add to Mrs. Du Toit's point about women's traditional sphere of power: in Chinese literature and drama, the evil matriarch who ties the young hero to her apron strings/keeps young lovers apart/drives her daughter-in-law to the convent is practically cliche.
My instant reaction is that the principled extension of voting rights to all adults, regardless of race or gender, is worth the economic tradeoff. The United States of America, more than any other nation, is founded on ideals--not blood, not race, not faith.
What value do we assign to the young women from, say, India who come to America (legally) because they choose the promise of equality over the security of tradition? The economic benefit that comes from stealing the world's best female minds goes a long way towards offsetting any leftist idiocies. Or so I hope.
Oh Michelle, that's an excellent point. Thanks.
I'd like to add, as well, that much of the WW2 production boom that America has experienced has been the result of the assimilation of women into the workforce. Compare America with, say, Saudi Arabia where women aren't allowed to work (or drive).
Balance that, however, against the probability that having both parents at work and away from the kids has had an adverse effect on families. That doesn't fall entirely on women, however; both men and women have been spending more time at work and less at home than ever before.
Don't miss the my more-recent post on the same subject.
"Are we as a nation better off having given women the power to vote?"
Uh...who's we? I think that comment would have to assert that we = nation = MEN.
And why was it "proper" ever to offer suffrage as a power (or deny it). That just struck me funny. I am reading you backwards since I've been out of town. You mention in your National Education Standards that, and I quote:
"Who gets to determine these national standards? Why, Ken of course! Not those morons from other places with other ideas! Naturally. After all, Ken knows he's smarter than they are, so he -- and people who agree with him -- should be empowered to set the education standards for everyone! Who knows what crazy things parents will teach their kids without his intervention!"
Now, substitute our friend Ken here with this blobby "we" - synonymous with the suffrage givers, I guess? Obviously, men knew better than women; why else would they have withheld suffrage in earlier times?
Ahem and tsk tsk. Mind your language and arguments that appear on the same page lest they betray you.
Also.
"With all that understanding, it's quite reasonable to wonder whether or not giving women the power to vote was a wise idea."
Look at your subtext here - men: power (giving); women: powerlessness. To what avail? You argue from a flawed standpoint; I'd rather see "why do we need democracy?" than this. This post struck me strange.
hln
hln, the reason I used "we as a nation" was to explicitly include both men and women. As I pointed out in the "continued", voting is not a right.
It's not that suffrage was specifically denied to women, it's simply that under the normal functioning rules of society at that time only people with power (people with an equity stake) were the ones who got to vote. This was a pretty significant difference from societies in which only the most powerful (i.e., the king) got to vote. Over the course of a century or so, suffrage was extended vastly to all men, and then all women, and this profoundly changed society.
And yes, even today men have more "hard" power in Western society than women do, for a whole host of reasons. As Dean and his commenters mentioned, women were far from powerless before they were allowed to vote, and many of the women of that era fought against suffrage because they felt it would degrade women's role and position in society. "Hard" power isn't the only type of power there is, and historically women have wielded a tremendous amount of soft power in almost every culture.
As to "why do we need democracy", that's the third part of this series, and it's already lined up :)
Ah, nice rejoinder. But, as you state, and what cannot be forgotten, is that "the nation" and its governance - all men. Women couldn't give women the right to vote; only men could.
That's the reason for my interpretation.
I'd like another post on why men have more "hard" power today than women; very interesting. Never considered it.
hln
All this would be moot if we as voters were prohibited from voting away our fellow citizens' rights. The democratic fallacy allows us to ignore the fact that we do so much of the time.
The Constitution established a Legislature: it does not follow that constant legislation is necessary.
Well, Brett, it would be nice if we couldn't vote away each other's rights, but almost any law does that to some degree. The point of the legislature is to make sure that when people's rights are restricted, it's with their agreement (that is, the agreement of the majority).
Our Constitution represents a priori agreement that we won't restrict rights in certain ways without broad consensus, but if we get that consensus the majority can do pretty much anything it wants.
I can't think of a way to prevent that. It's difficult for the past to restrict the actions of the future, if the future doesn't want to be bound. Although yes, I agree that society should restrict my rights less, even though there's no practical way to take away its power to do so.
Interesting piece and comments.
I wrestle with the problem of probabilities vs. prejudice .
We have codified in law the fact that 14 year olds may not drive, although some 14 year olds are perfectly capable of operating a motor vehicle (I personally learned to drive on the farm at age 10)
We prohibit 14 years olds from driving based on the statistical probability that they are more likely to be involved in accidents, etc.
Can this logic then be transposed to female voters, who have shown a documented tendency towards extra-constitutional socialistic public policy, without raising the spectre of unfair prejudice?
Fascinating topic.
Women have made this society without us you men would not survive in this world, I bet you can't even do your own laundry or even fix your own supper without going through McDonalds.
"But, as you state, and what cannot be forgotten, is that "the nation" and its governance - all men. Women couldn't give women the right to vote; only men could."
Women were in elected office before the passage of the 19th amendment. The basis of your argument, that "men" gave "women" suffrage is consufing the de facto for the de jure.
You sir, are a douchebag.
I have to admit to having some of these same ideas course through my veins during the election season. This whole discussion is a bit useless as it will never revert back. But it is a bit amusing to contemplate.
A couple of facts. Women do not vote overwhelmingly liberal. Single women, women without children, and women who are not religious vote liberal. Church going, married women with children vote very conservative. Instead of repealing the 19th amendment to achieve our political goals, we need to convince women that it was not wise to want what it appeared that men had, such as multiple sex partners, and wild sex and drug party life, dangerous occupations, etc. Many of the leading feminists who are now in their 50's are filled with regret.
The Bible has been the instruction book for 7000 years. We can hope that more of our women (and men) read it and follow it. Joy comes through relationships, not partying, not profession, not power, not sex . . . .
Hey, I'm confused. Our teachers, government reps., parents, the media, everyone is telling students like me that the importance of personal liberties, i.e. the 19th amendment, has nothing to do with monatary value. We are also taught to believe if any one group is denied these liberties, then any of our rights could be taken away. We keep our government accountable through the voting process. The results of these votes are what determines how the government can best represent us as a country.Maybe I'm just being idealistic, but if voting is designed to show the views of the public, wouldn't it stand to reason that every United States citizen should have that as a personal right, shouldn't that be given to them in our constitution? I certainly value my right to vote as a woman citizen, and I feel that the 19th amendment is important simply because it was a first step toward the acceptance of women as an important part of american culture, history, and future, an acceptance on a national level, and the realization that most women were tired of being told that they had a set place in society that was inferior to men, and you can't convince me that women were not considered inferior by men prior to this amendment and even somewhat after it. For the government to admit that women should be granted the vote was a huge step toward the reform of how/what women were thought of in society.
since you seem to be so outgoing and all and you dont care about expressing your opinions, just out of curiousity here... what are your views on homosexual marraiges? i honestly think it is wrong but i would like to hear what you think.
i dont really like what you said about womens right to vote. i am a woman and i appreciate the right. but as this is a free country, i think it rox that you express your opinion and even tho i dont agree with you, i think as long as you aren't hurting anyone or pointing fingers, you should continue to express your opinions.
I'd like to see how you would react being put in the "inferior" position of society, and being told your contributions to the country aren't good enough because they don't bring in enough money. Of course, this is ridiculous, because you are MAN almighty, the teller of all things right in this country. You can play with all the numbers and figures in the world, but, when it comes down to it, the world would not WORK if it weren't for both sexes. I don't know if you have a daughter or not, but is this whole blog something you would be proud to preach to her if you did have one?