Tag: Women’s Vote

By on

Robin Hansen worries that the worldwide population decline is driving the human species to extinction. His concern is shared by growing number of conservative thinkers. You would think in a world with 7 billion plus people that this could be put on the back burner. Apparently, I am wrong. Hanse believes it requires immediate attention. There becomes a point, are so Hansen thinks, that declining population becomes irreversible and that this point could come soon unless we change our ways. Don’t be fooled by the expected growth of population continuing and is expected to reach somewhere in the region of 10 billion by 2100. This is an urgent problem.

Hansen views our population cutting ways as similar to an addiction. People live in big cities where there are more things to do. People want to have some adventures before they settle into family life. They need to educate themselves for the complex modern world which requires quite a bit of training expense which, then, entails a bit of time to repay the money borrowed to obtain that training and education. They want to live a well rounded life. They use birth control to ensure they can have these experiences. They see themselves as something more than breeders. These all seem like reasonable things to want but they also are stopping people from having children, hence the crisis.

Hansen, then, wonders what can we do to make child rearing more attractive so people will stop enjoying their childless lives and start repopulating the planet. This is where things get dicey. Having children is both expensive and time consuming. People have to be willing to make this sacrifice. How do you get people to trade in leisurely Saturday mornings for transporting three kids in three different directions? As Hansen even admits, there are no easily solutions to this problem. Hansen lamely tosses out paying couples to have babies. Who exactly does he think will pay for this? Certainly not the American taxpayer.

This leaves the unspoken hint of coercion. Women will have to subordinate their ambitions and desires to repopulate the planet. It is worrisome that this is being framed as an existential crisis because, then, more drastic measures become acceptable. If the world needs babies, then the world better make sure women are having babies. While Hansen avoids suggesting the subordination of women, other conservative thinkers are not so cautious. There are conservative thinkers who want to do away with votes for women, who want to create a Christian Nationalists state where men are in control, and who want to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion even if her health is at stake.

What makes this concern irksome is that Conservatives are also panicking about immigration which would be a solution to the declining population problem. Many western countries now are below replacement population fertility. These are the very countries that poor immigrants want to go so why not just welcome these immigrants as the solution to our problem. I mean there are hordes at the Mexican border. Those hordes are largely young and fertile. Win Win, right.

Not exactly. These immigrants are criminals and/or have different values than us. OK, criminals I get and I support keeping those immigrants out. But the vast majority of immigrants are just looking for an opportunity for a better life which seems in alignment to the American Dream. Additionally, the vast majority of them come from Central America where Christianity is the most popular religion. Since some form of Christianity is the religion most Americans practice, this seems another point where the values of the immigrants align with the American people. This, to me, suggests we have a lot in common with the immigrants at the border, so why all the fuss about immigration?

This is why I don’t buy that this is a crisis worthy of my attention. Particularly when Conservatives get all wanky when Environmental groups talk about Global Warming. If global warming is a hoax based on extrapolating present temperature data into the future even though I can actually see the problems of a warming world — with more extreme weather, more fires and a warming ocean then why should I believe in declining population problem while sitting in traffic jams and searching for open parking spaces at crowded shopping malls.

This is all about controlling women’s fertility and getting the right women (read white middle class here) to have children. It would be far more encouraging if conservatives genuinely supported an agenda that supported families, but they don’t. They don’t want to spend any money on helping anyone, so the only tool they have in their tool kit is coercion which will only work if they take power away from women. And I think Conservatives will have a difficult time, even from Conservative women, if they try to take this power.

By on

Elon Musk thinks that the collapse of babies being born is a bigger concern than global warming. He is not alone. Many Conservative and Libertarian men share this concern. China, the second heaviest populated country, and until just a short time ago, the heaviest populated country in the world, has begun a population reversal. So what? Well, given all the present data, China will suffer a population collapse do to this reversal. Again, so what? China is also a country that many of these same men ascribe as the author of many of the evils in the present world, isn’t that a good thing. No, you see, the problem plagues much of Southern Europe (Spain, Italy and Bulgaria) and Eastern Asia (Japan and South Korea). The West is beginning to lose population as well.

I am still unmoved. Well, then think about the economy which depends upon consumers buying products, you idiot. If there are less consumers, there are less customers for the products business is selling. So that’s the real problem money. I should have guessed. The worry is that the combined problem of an overburdened social security system and the lack of new customers will undermine Western economies.

This is irritating for a number of reasons. Predictions based on present data is quite often wrong which is, again, something that these Conservative men should understand. They are constantly making this same claim when discussing Global Warming. Sometimes these predictions just don’t pan out. For example, many demographers in the 1940s were predicting a low population growth in the USA for the 1950’s based on the low birth rates of the 1930’s, instead they got a Baby Boom. The explanation is simple. Parents of the 1930’s were reacting to the Depression, while parents of the 1950’s were reacting to the post-World War II economic boom. People make different decisions when their circumstances change.

If women knew it was an essential for the continuation of civilization as we know it, then they might be prone to having children, until then I think a few less people being born might be something to give a little time to get used to and see what happens. Perhaps, the ever ingenious human being will come up with an alternate way to live other than consumer consumption of mostly useless products for an endlessly expanding population.

Instead of thinking about these new possibilities, these free thinkers are slyly going after abortion and birth control. David Strom, pro-life writer, recently gloried that more babies are being born in Texas population since the reversal of Roe v Wade. So then he celebrates the birth of 10,000 babies while ignoring the women who gave birth to these babies. At best this is a morally ambiguous achievement. A woman is being forced into having a baby against her will, a reasonable person might also show some sympathy for the women put in this position. He doesn’t. Furthermore, the Roe decision also has emboldened anti-birth control advocates to step up their efforts to make birth control more difficult to obtain. Yes, and, also they are going after a women’s right to vote. The real goal here is obvious — keeping women barefoot, pregnant and powerless.

With all these efforts to make women mothers, you would think that the Republicans would try to make motherhood more attractive. They aren’t. A good example of this penchant for stopping government involved in anything even if it would help potential mothers is a recent development in Idaho where the Republican dominated legislature there decided to stop tracking maternal health mortality program. There isn’t enough money and, besides, the government should be involved in learning more about public health problems. Right. Message received.

So, to summarize, the world needs more babies. Women aren’t stepping up and having them. Governments need to make it more difficult to obtain abortions and birth-control in order to make this happen. And, no, the Government isn’t going to help women with their health or any of the many expenses a baby might cause her. Well, then, how fucking urgent can it be?

By on

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to limit the vote to people with children because children give parents a special interest in the future, so hence are better voters. He provides absolutely no proof that this is true other than parents have children and, because they do, they care more about the future than single people.

I am confused. When has voting ever been about the future? It is almost always about the now. Like how are we going to spend tax revenues now, how are we going to protect people from crime now, how are we going to educate people now, do we want to send troops to Afghanistan now — I could go on but you get my point. Politics is about how we live now and, though the future looms big in the background, what people in the present are actually worried about is what is going on now. Telling people that yes things are miserable now but it will payoff in thirty years for your children isn’t exactly a rousing campaign slogan for parents either.

The good news here is Musk ‘s proposal is dead upon arrival. Voting rights for women and minorities are enshrined in the U.S Constitution so that involves a constitutional amendment to change. I suppose he could introduce a Constitutional Amendment taking away the vote from single people but we all know it is a long an arduous process through 50 state legislature. Furthermore single people still can vote and, presumably would vote against the idea along with their friends that maybe parents.

Musk isn’t being serious. He is stirring the pot and it is interesting which pot he has chosen to put his spoon. Conservatives and Libertarians are going after limiting the vote. It’s not just making it difficult anymore, it is making it impossible to get your hands on a ballot in the first place. The implications are shocking, at least, shocking to me. He is saying that there are people who are more worthy of full citizenship than others and, if you want to know who he is thinking might be cut from the voting rolls, Musk has thrown is some ideas for your consideration.

But it aligns with Republican notions that if only the right people voted, that Republicans would win. And what do you know, married couples tend to vote Republican. Single men also vote Republican but less so than married people. Single women are the trouble for the Republicans and they vote overwhelming Democratic, so much so that it erases any advantage the Republicans get from the other three groups. Instead of working on changing the minds of single women, the Republicans have opted to change who can vote.

These ideas about limiting the vote are not isolated ideas either. It’s a topic that I keep seeing – particularly in Libertarian and Far Right circles. Columnist Michael Walsh proposed limiting the vote to men. He artfully never says women are incapable of rational thought but he quotes others to defend this notion. He describes how the ancient Romans felt that “women were never considered worthy of the vote. They were too emotional, too devious in their machinations, and certainly too weak to fight.” Really. Of course it is the Romans saying it, not Walsh. Really. Is it that surprising the Ancient Romans felt this way about women. Ancient Rome, you know, about two thousand years ago. Romans were also partial to slavery and viewed women as nothing more than vessels for the production of children. How much Roman wisdom does Walsh want us to incorporate into the modern American system? These attacks on the vote are also coming from all directions. The other day Seaford, Delaware tried to give the vote to non-resident business owners. This almost made it through the Delaware legislature.

This constant attack on the present franchise is worrisome. Take away the vote from women. Take away the vote from single people. Keep taking away voting rights until you get the electorate willing to vote your way. But it won’t be a functioning democracy. And what arrogance. The underlying assumption of these men is that they are more worthy than you and know what is best for you. That is if you’re single or a woman or both. Get it. I am waving my middle finger.

By on

Michael Walsh, conservative columnist, believes that a repeal of a number of Constitutional Amendments needs to take place in order to save the republic. The 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote is one of the amendments Walsh would like to repeal. In Walsh’s mind, the republic has fallen apart since women received the franchise. Walsh is, or at least I hope, is trolling his audience but it is difficult to discern if this is true because he goes all in for repeal. He wants to limit voters along the lines of ancient Greece and Rome which boils down to two groups — men who have served in the military and male property owners. This, of course, deprives a lot of people the franchise – all women and men who don’t own property — well over fifty percent of the present voting population.

Why Walsh would propose such a repeal is a bit mystifying. Most importantly, it is hugely unpopular. Since women presently have the vote and make up more than 50% of the population, how would this even be enacted in the present system? His very vague plan is that women will willingly surrender the vote when they all have a strong man to care for them. He also dredges up the old canards that women are too fickle and too emotional to be given such an important privilege. For proof of these weaknesses, he goes, again, back to ancient Rome. The Sabine women who were carried off by the Romans interceded to stop the war between their new husbands and their old families. Why women don’t have the sense to leave their kidnappers and rapist to return to their families. Men would never do that.

There are many problems with Walsh’s argument but I will stick to two. He provides no evidence that women are too emotional and too fickle to vote. Or that men only vote based on cold hard data and never let their emotions guide them. He bases is case on old stereotypes about women rather than, how shall I put this delicately, cold hard data. Given his supposition is based on the rational thinking man deserves the vote, he might have, at the very least, thrown is some data that proves his point. He doesn’t. In fact, his is an emotional response to how women vote instead of an exercise in rational thinking. Women vote Democratic and he doesn’t like it. Not liking something without data is just a tantrum but certainly not a demonstration of a reasonable being.

Then Walsh assumes that men took their role as husband and father seriously in the good old days. They didn’t. Women had husbands who drank their wages away, husbands who disappeared when they couldn’t fulfill their responsibilities, husbands who didn’t work and expected their wives to fulfill both roles as the provider and the family caretaker, and husbands who stiffed their wives on alimony and child support. Since some men failed in their obligations, women were left at the mercy of the men who ran the country. Given the male’s unemotional and rational approach to government, this meant very little help for any woman unfortunate enough to marry a loser. They should have made a wiser decision before walking up the aisle. At this point, many women reasonably, I dare say, decided to seek political power as a way of offsetting the feckless behavior of their husbands.

What Walsh really wants is to limit the franchise to people who vote Republican and eliminate potential Democratic voters. This can be clearly seen in the comments section of Instapundit where I initially found Walsh’s article. Again, probably more trolling done here, but the commenters want to limit the vote even further than Walsh. One person wants to eliminate all unmarried voters since they have no children and thus have no stake in the future. Another person shows in color coordinated blue and red maps that if voters were limited to white males that the Republicans would win every election.

What is missing here is how conservatives and Republicans might make their case to the wider franchise. Walsh and his commenters are admitting that they only appeal to white male voters and given up on persuading women to vote Republican. Instead Walsh proposes limiting the franchise to voters who already vote Republican. Given that women are so emotional and fickle, I find it difficult to understand why these superior male minds can’t come up with a scare tactic that will push these thoughtless creatures into voting Republican. What is more baffling is that they aren’t even trying very hard to persuade women to vote differently. Really, if you can’t outsmart people who you believe to have a weak and irrational mind, what good is your superior intelligence in the first place?