Ann Coulter has taken my 19th Amendment thought experiment from 2003 to the next level and actually suggests that we'd all be better off it women couldn't vote.
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
As I wrote long ago, it's an interesting thought experiment (and many women were against womens' suffrage at the time) but I'm not sure we can really use such a broad counterfactual to draw credible conclusions. After all, Communism and Fascism came from men, as do tyrannies of all sorts. Perhaps denying suffrage to women would have led to a more libertarian government but also undermined our foundation of democracy and thereby led to less stability and eventual tyranny? Who can say.
More babies would live, that's for sure.
Ann Coulter remains an idiot, I see..
I know you are not seriously proposing this - that's why it's a "thought experiment" - but I still find the idea pretty awful, as you might guess. This is because I'm not sure I like the results of the experiment. My reaction is: You wouldn't want caring people in government, or having a say on what government should do, would you? Only cold-hearted economists who are out of touch with the serious struggles of a big chunk of the population, and who borrow from wherever they can due to an odd obsession with lowering taxes. I agree with you that most women in general probably have more of a socialist/cooperative view of how society should operate, while most men in general have more of a competitive/darwinist view. I don't think the government should be solely ruled by socialist/cooperative types, but I think their influence is part of the balance that makes American government function as well as it does.
(I admit that I personally think American society is not quite socialist/cooperative enough, but I still think that the competitive/darwinist people should have their say, in order to keep us hippies from going too crazy). (And by "darwinist" I mean "in favor of a competitive mostly-free market and privatized services", not "against creationism". Funny how those two "darwinist" groups seem to have no people in common).
And I don't see why a mother would want her kids' health care to be government-subsidized any more or any less than those kids' father would. Especially if the father is the one in the family in charge of money, which I bet is the case in the prehistoric gender roles Ms Coulter seems to like.
(Not that I ever take Ann Coulter seriously. I'm almost sure she is an undercover comedian from the Colbert Report or something, seeing how far she can get away with saying absurdities before she reveals that she never meant them and was just testing people's ignorance).
BM: So, you're mostly in favor of allowing women to vote because you like the (supposed) outcome, not because you think anyone's right to vote is inalienable or what-have-you?
What does inalienability of the right to vote have to do with it? Isn't any argument (such any of those mentioned above) based on what the result might be?
Where does this "thought experiment" go? Of course if you eliminate certain constituents, you eliminate certain people from office; you don't need an experiment for that. You can always win if you eliminate your enemies. Why stop there? If they're too stupid to vote, why bother keeping them around for anything?
mpayne: I don't think you're looking at the more subtle effects. Politicians shape debate in a lot of ways, they don't merely reflect the perspective of their electorate.
Also, who said anything about stupid? Despite differences, neither women nor men are more intelligent than the other. Isn't is possible that, despite being of equal intelligence, one gender would tend to vote for governments that everyone could agree (after seeing them) are better than what we've got?
Finally, the vast majority of people in the world now can't vote for their government, and yet they're "kept around" for various purposes. Voting isn't the end-all and be-all of existence, last time I checked.
Why do I think it's important that everyone gets to vote? Well, in this case, because I am more likely to like the result than if only more conservative people (men, according to this theory) voted, yes. But it does go beyond that. Why is voting good? I don't think it's an inalienable right, although it might be. In any case, I think it's important because it ensures that what the government is doing is not opposed by a large fraction of the population. In a democracy, if most people think you're doing a bad job of guiding the society towards justice, after a few years you're out. Democracy is like a valve that vents the dissatisfaction people feel about their government. If you don't allow a large group to vote, their dissatisfaction builds and builds, and that's bad. If the group is big enough, this will cause them to protest and do other disruptive things, and it's probably better (less disruptive) to avoid this by giving those people some power rather than by getting them so dissatisfied that they take it by force. So I think it's important for everyone to get to vote so that they are never too dissatisfied with their government, so that government can improve via evolution rather than revolution. Revolutions can work, but they're very hard and disruptive and sometimes bloody, so I would favor a system that causes the same changes towards justice but without the hassle of a revolution. Not letting half the adult population vote is the kind of thing that can easily cause pressure to build towards some kind of revolution or at least serious disruption.
But I haven't thought about this a whole lot. It seems to me that democracy is a fundamental axiomatic assumption of the American "experiment", one of those "If you don't like it, leave" kinda things (along with separation of church and state, no formally-defined classes, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, due process... and all those other things that the current administration keeps chipping away at). Are those things good? No way to know for sure, other than trying it and seeing if people are happier because of them. Right?
It's very difficult to separate the outcome from the intrinsic value of granting these rights to all. I surprise myself by saying that, given what I've commented before about pragmatism. I suppose my pragmatism arises from the notion of individual liberty, not the other way around.
I don't really understand that part of the quoted article which suggests that state intervention in health, day-care etc. are of exclusive appeal to mothers: aren't fathers equally affected by those things?
I think the idea behind men voting originally was to poll one vote per household rather than one per adult person, but the whole notion of what constitutes a household has been in flux for a long time.
Tyrannies are made famous by men, but my experience indicates that where extremism lasts, it is because it is maintained by the women, ie mothers teach and reinforce in their children the prevailing extremist views of the day far more so than the fathers. As for originating, who can say whether Hitler wrote mein kampf in an attempt to impress some hot aryan chick?
BM: I agree in general with your defense of democracy (and I too don't believe voting is a "right" in the same way as free speech and personal property are, for instance). However, in the specific case of women voting, your argument that allowing women to vote helps prevent them from violent uprising doesn't hold water. Our western approach to the involvement of women in the political process is a historical aberration, and to my knowledge no collection of women has ever used violence to attain political power. Nor have men (to my knowledge) ever used violence for the enfranchisement of women.
jez: I think your idea that voting was originally intended to be a poll of households rather than individuals is correct. I also agree that child care etc. aren't the exclusive concern of mothers... but women are generally the ones who want more tax dollars spent towards such things.
And yeah, men are far more violent for women, but women are still at the root of it ;)
One thing that hasn't been covered (and I am for women's suffrage if anybody cares) is that political influence is not reduced across the board by an electorate without women. Married women will be able to influence their husbands profoundly and effectively gain a partial vote because husbands tend to want to please their wives, especially in matters that the society of the time deems 'female'. Single women would be most disenfranchised as they have nobody who will inform their vote based on their opinions. Their opinions would be limited to the pamphlet and the op-ed page, having little impact in the dining and bed rooms.
The practical effect of this would be to enhance conservatism and to encourage marriage. I still believe in women's suffrage because I think that one can square the circle, convince single women to enter the family system while not being disproportionately susceptible to accepting government as an alternative patriarch.
I think it's possible that due to (nature/nurture/both) women on average are less inclined towards productive large-group dynamics than are men on average. If this were proven beyond doubt, would you/I support disenfranchisement of women?
Not me, because that phrase "on average" is very important. For almost every man you might select, it is not only possible but quite easy for me to select a woman who is more inclined towards large social groups.
If you want to restrict the vote to those who are so inclined (and that's a big if), then gender isn't the best selection tool. You might be better off using wealth or nobility.
Women, as a group, are just as susceptible to lies and deception as men. Exhibit A for this is the success of advertising that preys upon women's maternal protection instincts. How else would things like "sanitizing wipes" and "sanitizing sprays" become major money makers (in spite of the fact that these items *reduce* health rather than promote it) were it not for the ability of pulls on selective strings to yield desired monetary results? This all demonstrates that women are as likely to be fooled by politicians (and advertisers, a group of which politicians are a part) as men, meaning they should get to share in the freedoms.. and responsibilities.. of electing those who govern us all.
jez: Well, being that we're talking averages it actually does mean that it isn't true that "For almost every man you might select, it is not only possible but quite easy for me to select a woman who is more inclined towards large social groups."
I bet that gender is an extremely good selection tool for this case, but wealth would also be a decent proxy. BTW, men tend to earn vastly more money over their lifetimes than women do.
Mark: If women are more easily fooled by such things than men, then wouldn't disenfranchising them make sense?
(Mind you all, I'm not advocating here, I'm just analyzing.)
MW: They're not "more easily fooled" they're "as easily fooled". Where men are typically fooled by appeals to their machismo (or threats to it), women are fooled by appeals to their motherly instincts. They're equal in their ability to fool their respective sexes because the root of that fallibility is, in both cases, instincts; something over which we at best have only a veneer of control.
Mark: I'll have to think about that, but it goes against my intuition. When I go to the mall (rarely) it looks like the customers there buying useless junk are 3:1 women at least.
MW: Of course it looks that way to you, being a male. Lots of things guys buy undoubtedly appear to be "useless junk" to many women, too.
The simple fact of the matter is that both men and women buy lots of "useless junk".. and that they each perceive the other's purchases to largely consist of "useless junk" even though their own purchases are regarded as either "not that big of a deal" or "gotta have it" items.
Also, consider that while malls are often dominated by stores that cater to women (and gay men, by the by) there are plenty of other stores that cater to men, such as Home Depot, Cabella's, and Foot Locker. There are also stores that have unisex appeal, such as Wal-Mart.
I don't know... it seems pretty universally agreed that women make most purchasing decisions, and it is likely follows that they buy most useless crap.
That's not how an average works.
It's easy to find them because the relatively small number of women inclined towards large groups are the more prominent for that that. Both personally and in public life, the high networking women stand out. They're there, albeit (perhaps) distributed more thinly.
Also, I can find a man more inclined towards small groups than pretty much any woman you can challenge me with. He might have aspergers or something, but I can do it.
J.
MW said: "and it likely follows that they buy most useless crap"
No it doesn't.
jez: Depends what kind of average you're using. If we're talking median, then it does mean exactly what I said. If mean, then what I said isn't necessarily the case, but given the normal distribution of the human species it's very likely. While I don't grant you that high networking women stand out, I also don't see that it's relevant unless you literally mean that "standing out" is a quality that makes it easier to find women to match the easily found men, etc.
Mark: So you'd claim that although women make 80% of purchases, they only make 50% of the "useless crap" purchases? I find that statistically unlikely.
MW: First, the 80% figure as you've stated it is highly misleading. Women make 80% of all purchases in our economy? I don't think so. The figure from the BusinessWeek article deals with buying decisions, as in to buy *or not buy* something. For your use of the figure to be correct they'd have to say "buy" every time, and that's just not realistic.
Second, even if women have more purchasing authority than men it is not at all demonstrated (much less proven) that 100% of that authority is going to be exercised on the purchase, 100% of the time, of "useless crap".
Third, I'd like to see you statistically quantify and differentiate between what's "useless crap" and what isn't in order to show any of the statistical (un)likelihood you claim exists.
Mark: What's a decision "not to buy" something? Every day there are millions of things I don't buy. That's meaningless. None of what you said makes sense.
When it says "But they make more than 80% of buying decisions in all homes" it means women buy 80% of the things. That's four times as much as men buy. Even if a purchase by a man is twice as likely to be useless crap as a purchase by a woman, women would still buy twice as much useless crap as men.
Third, it doesn't matter how you define useless crap. Define it however you want. If it's a useful definition, the statistics are so lopsided that I can't help but be right.
MW: A decision not to buy something is a decision not to buy something you were considering buying. In order for 80% of buying decisions to be made by women, there has to be quite a few (many, perhaps) things men want to buy that women ultimately say "no" to. So no, "80% of buying decisions in all homes" does not mean they make 80% of all purchases.
And yes it does matter how you define "useless crap" because what's useless to some is not useless to others because, guess what, we don't all have the same professions, the same interests, the same needs, or the same desires.
Mark: I understand what you're saying about "buying decisions", but I'm pretty confident that you're misinterpreting the data. There's no way to collect the kind of information you're talking about. The almost statistic certainly means that of the things that a family buys, 80% were bought by the woman.
By any reasonable definition of "crap", the statistics indicate I'd be right.
MW: The devil is in the details of that 80% figure. The 80% figure isn't *all* purchases, big and small.. it's major household items like dishwashers, cars, etc. Those are big-ticket items in our economy but they're far from everything.. and most people wouldn't regard those major household items as "useless crap". As far as everyday items and everything else, over which more people can agree what constitutes "useless crap", you'll find more parity between men and women.