Book of the Month

Orlando's picture

Women’s Suffrage Under Attack

by Orlando 9/30/2009 - 5:03 pm   |

Ok. So suffrage isn’t really under attack. But twice this year I’ve read accounts of writers who think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to deny women the right to vote. It makes me wonder if the Republican party, having just this year burned major bridges with minorities and gays, is going for the trifecta.

 

The first account was by some blogger in Chico, California. I wrote about it here:

 

http://dagblog.com/politics/blame-game-its-your-fault-america-road-ruin-580

 

Now, we have another account:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020196.php

British-American conservative thinker extraordinare John Derbyshire suggests that we would be a better country if women didn’t vote. Apparently, he’s devoted a whole chapter to the topic in his new book. But from an interview he gave on Alan Colmes’ radio show, it seems to boil down to his idea that women “lean hard to the left”.

 

So, Derbyshire thinks women shouldn’t be granted the vote because they don’t vote the way he wants them to. What a shining beacon of democracy this guy is. I wonder what he thinks of women in office. More importantly, I wonder if Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingram both voted for hard-left candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. Maybe it’s their fault we got President Bush.

Wow.

That's flabbergasting.

by Doctor Cleveland 9/30/2009 - 5:10 pm

It is and it isn't. For example, I know that secretly all the Dagboyz wish I didn't have a vote.

by Orlando 9/30/2009 - 5:13 pm (re: Doctor Cleveland)

That depends. Are you for Mega-Shark or Giant Octopus?

by Nebton 9/30/2009 - 6:21 pm (re: Orlando)

Not at all. We just wish that you didn't have a voice.

by Genghis 9/30/2009 - 11:54 pm (re: Orlando)

If you didn't catch it, Colbert hosted guest Sheryl WuDunn, co-author of Half the Sky.  I highly recommend it, but I can't get the embed code to copy so I've linked it here.

I've become increasingly angry about the condition of women in the developing world.  One of the things that pisses me off to no end about the disingenuous frame of the "war on terror" is that we've continued to support regimes that are highly oppressive to women, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, because it is congruent with our "national interests".

As an atheist and a humanist, I regard the systematic destruction of the lives of women by oppressive, theocratic regimes is one of the greatest evils in the world today.  As a pragmatist, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not taking a moral stand on these issues.

Population is the driving factor in the problems of the 21st century.  Consider global warming.  Consider energy resources.  Consider food and water.  The rate of expulsion of greenhouse gases and the rate of consumption of resources are directly correlated and are functions of population.

As it happens, the best way to control the population is to educate women.  Educated women tend to have fewer children later in life.  They also tend to invest massively in their own families and communities.

I also maintain that the best way to reduce the incidence of terrorism is to increase economic opportunity.  Terrorism, like other criminal activity, is directly correlated to the lack of economic opportunity that comes with failed states.  Democracy, the rule of law and economic opportunity all go hand-in-hand and all serve to mitigate crimes both petty and egregious.

What if it turned out that one of the ways to mitigate terrorism and climate change and resource conflicts was to stop treating women as sub-human?  What if it turned out that it was not only a moral imperative, but also pragmatic in terms of actually being able to solve these problems?

Meanwhile, we have people trying to turn back the clock here in the U.S.  Colbert famously quipped that reality has a liberal bias.  Maybe women also have a liberal bias.  Maybe they're right.

by DF 9/30/2009 - 6:17 pm

We're definitely right. But so are you. Education and economic freedom for women are key.

As an aside, since you mention Saudi Arabia, I've been job searching outside the country--which is one of the reasons I haven't been writing much lately. There's definitely more on that to come. As of now, I'll be heading out sometime after Christmas.

I got a job offer in Saudi Arabia and I gave it a lot of thought. I could handle the hijab. I could handle covering my hair. I could handle (for a year) being treated by men like I wasn't as smart as them (hell, that happens in the states sometimes). What finally helped me decide that it wasn't a good idea to accept the offer was the total restriction of movement. I would have a nice apartment and a nice job, with other women of course, I would have a lot of money and a lot of vacation. But what I wouldn't have is the freedom to decide I'd like to go for a walk and then to put on my shoes and go. Because women can't go outside in SA without a male chaperone. So, I would have to be driven to my school and to the mall and to the grocery store and to anywhere. The driver, paid for by my employer, would also be my chaperone. Having a babysitter for a year I could not handle. So I said no.

by Orlando 9/30/2009 - 6:42 pm (re: DF)

Latest Comments

more