I notice that men and women have the same rights as citizens, but military service is required of men and not of women. So the rights/duties equation is out of balance.
I do not think that women belong in military service, but I wonder why they are accorded the same rights as those who ARE liable for military service?
Perhaps women's suffrage was simply one of the mistakes of our history, a part of the general trend to extend the vote to everyone, regardless of qualifications. One-person-one-vote is not a universally correct principle. Could not the political views of women find expression through the votes of the male citizens of their families? While we are re-examining things, this ought to be re-examined as well, and justified.
It could be said that women would have many opportunities through free speech and action to influence the political process and that they are not made politically powerless by not being permitted the vote.
It could also be said that restricting the vote to males ratifies and strengthens the fundamental family structure where the husband has the ultimate responsibility and the final say on matters within the family - just as God created it.
How might we accomodate the women who either choose not to marry or do not have an acceptable opportunity to marry? And as for women who serve in the military, I would consider them juste as elligible to vote under the above proposal. And furthermore, some wives are just plain smarter than their husbands. Just ask my wife.
Alonzo,
I fail to see in your post any particular reason that we should *not* allow women to vote.
Honestly, while I have to admire the guts needed to actually state that women maybe should not be allowed to vote, I really cannot believe that in this day and age such a proposal would be seriously suggested. It makes me want to question your motives for proposing it.
And I have to agree with "Anonymous" in that oftentimes my wife simply kicks my rear end when it comes to "smarts" and common sense. :-)
To repeat, the rights/duties equation is out of balance. Men alone can and must bear the burden of military service in defense of country, yet both men and women are permitted to vote. My question was, why the imbalance? This should be explained. The concept is that rights and duties go hand in hand and ought to be linked. It's a question of fairness and equity.
One way to right the imbalance would be for female citizens to have all rights EXCEPT the right to vote. Or it could be stated that only those who are serving or have completed military service have earned the right to vote.
Another way to view it would be to say that women bear and raise children and that this is their alternate service to society which qualifies them to vote as full citizens. This point could be argued, but it certainly has some validity.
The right to vote is not based on intelligence or shrewdness. Unquestionably there are clever women and stupid men, but no one proposes that this fact should qualify or disqualify anyone to vote. In Joel's proposal, the emphasis is on earning the right to vote through performing the duties of a citizen.
I don't see why women are excluded from the military? I do not agree that women should serve in combat but I see that they have an invaluabe role in the defense of this country. Every able bodied male in the military should be in a combat unit or combat support unit. Women can serve in the rear in headquarters positions. Women served in varying capacities of the military during WWII, some even as pilots ferrying aircraft to combat units.
There are many valuable non-combat support units that women could serve in the military, segregated from the men who must serve in combat.
My proposals are preliminary, so I really appreciate your challenging the assumptions underlying any such proprosal. Let me share with you some of my thinking in this regard.
There are valid reasons to exclude women from mandatory military service. There are issues of differences in physical strength, different and unique hygene needs, privacy needs, and the need to avoid sexual tensions within units. There is also the issue of marriage--not wanting to force married women to leave the home or children and serve apart from the husband, OR to cause a perverse incentive to go get married just to avoid military service.
Having said that, I do not exclude the benefits of having single women serve in non-combat roles in the military. My current proposal doesn't not prohibit women from serving, it just doesn't mandate it as part of the citizenship covenant.
Quite aside from this, I see no need to "balance" to a perfectionist degree the rights and responsibilities of citizenship between men and women. Clearly men are more suited to certain types of responsibilities I have allowed for this in the physical defense of liberty. I'm open to the possibility of non-combat citizenship service for single women, but in general I don't want to give government incentives to create any more universal service than is necessary.
As an aside, one of the key purposes of the citizen compact is to get people to voluntarily agree to partially yield certain fundament rights which government could not otherwise touch--like involuntary military service. You will notice that I also include some eminent domain issues in the citizen contract--simply to make sure that government realizes it has absolutely no right (by legislative edict) to take property for "public purposes." But the citizens can voluntarily agree to give up limited amounts of property rights, as long as the limits are strictly safeguarded.
As for the vote, I don't want to see a direct linkage between the right to vote and military service. I think women participate in the sacrifice of men in military service by the potential threat of loss of fathers, brothers, or other relatives, and having to take up other responsibilities in the men's absence. It is not equal, but surely there is an increased burden upon the women at home when men are off to war.
As to voting rights, I am far more concerned that the citizen compact induce people to come up to a high level of knowledge about law and government sufficient to make sure they are intelligent and principled voters. The requirement to pass a solid test on the principles of law and sign a commitment not to undermine those principles is a wonderful standard that will go a long way to avoiding the barage of uninformed voters we are plagued with today.
There will be direct linkages between certain types of voting rights and specific types of tax burdens. Whether or man or woman, voting on the use of property tax funds should be linked in some way to the amount people pay. But because of the physical ability differences of men and women in combat, I would prefer not to have any linkage with voting here.
Universal military training for men is important to toughen men and make sure you have a basis of ready reserve that can get into shape fairly quickly. While I fail to see the same type of training necessary for women, I think it would also be useful to have single women take some self defense training too. Toughening women is as important to men. But if we start down this road of putting into "force" what we think is "good for people" then we violate one of the major principles of good law. There is a compelling reason to toughen men, since it is essential in military service. Where there isn't such a compelling reason for women, as to constitutional defense, we probably shouldn't make it mandatory, at taxpayer expense.
Joel Skousen
For such an important topic, as the right to vote, I wish I could directly quote the following:
The Socialist movement was responsible for giving women the right(privilege)to vote.
Because Socialism is based on how women feel
(Women talk about what they feel about something ,
Men talk about what they think about something.
There is a difference.Also you are more easily mislead thru your feelings than you are thru what you think.)
In the current system, the right(privilege),
to vote is a FRANCHISE:In a popular sense,the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises,such as the right of sufferage,etc.
Black's Law Dictionary third edition.
In California,there is the Franchise Tax Board,
which taxes your franchise.(political rights)
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Women should not be allowed to vote?
At the same time in history(1920),as women were given the right(privilege) to vote,the New York State Senate was investigating the infiltration
of communists into the New York state government.
The result was a report more than 3,000 pages long.
The founding fathers purposely did not give women the right to vote.
I ask you, has our political situation improved, since women were given the right(privilege ) to vote or has the political situation become worse.
Women should NOT be allowed to vote.
Go to Cleon Skousen's website,click on
" state constitutions". In the original state constitutions, will you find that women did not have the right (privilege) to vote.
I suggest to all, especially Mr. Skousen that
you read thru the state constitutions,to look for how more intelligent men than us, have written a constitution.Look for what appears to be common and good, also look for any possible flaws in each.
Take note of the flaws and do not repeat them.
I know Rosie O'Donnell says lots of dumb things but it's not like women have the whole market on political stupidity. I give you Alec Baldwin, Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, William Jefferson Clinton, the entire clan of Kennedy men, James Carville... I could go on forever naming stupid men.
For every publicly politically stupid woman you name I'll give you at least one I'm proud of as well as a politically stupid man. You only need to search the commentary section of WorldNetDaily.com to find plenty of smart women.
We gave women the right to vote and from that time on the system has gone to pot ergo women voting has caused it is faulty on so many levels I don't know where to start. There are a thousand different reasons I can think of why the system is breaking and moving towards tyranny. And I can name plenty of men who are liberals and willing to sell liberty for power. I think we would be in the same political situation now if only men could vote anyway.
I will grant this however. I think the women's movement has had a large part in devaluing the role of women as mothers. That has done more to tear up the family than most any other reasons I can think of. However, I know many women who consider themselves feminist (my wife included) who value the role of mother while believing that women should not be denied fairness at work.
They didn't give black men the right to vote either, so what?
Quote:The founding fathers purposely did not give women the right to vote.
Whatever scheme is used to determine voting must be fairly applied among every race and sex. Otherwise we are no better than our current "leaders" who dole out privileges based those same criteria.
PRIVILEGE:"A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person,company or class
beyond the common advantages of other citizens."
Black's Law Dictionary third edition
"One can have a privilege,only by depriving other men of a portion of their rights.Consequently a reign of justice will consist in the destruction
of every privilege and the restitution of every right." Patrick Dove,1850
"At the root of America's problem is the fact that
we have never been true to Jefferson's principle:
"Equal rights for all;special privileges to none"
"When you allow special privileges to some, the rest of the population is put at a disadvantage,
which is magnified with each suceeding generation." Robert De Fremery
Wouldn't denying women the right to vote be giving men a privilege? It would be a peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person,company or class (men) beyond the common advantages of women. Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.
When I started this thread, I questioned (not opposed) voting rights for women. But after further thought, I now believe that we ought to encourage as many residents as possible to RESPONSIBLY buy-in to the political system. This is part of how we defend against any sort of oligarchy again taking control of things for their own purposes. The more power is de-centralized, the more informed and responsible voters there are, the more difficult to circumvent the electoral process.
Denying full voting citizenship to women would be working against this purpose. An informed and responsible voting citizen is a net asset to a republic. So we would not want to eliminate 50% of our potential citizens simply because of their sex. Not to mention the fact that we would also be creating a potentially aggrieved class of 2nd class citizens who would be obvious targets for future sowers of discord.
As to the military service/voting imbalance, I believe Joel is correct in saying that women must also make extraordinary sacrifices in wartime, even though their "service" is more informal and family oriented.
Historically, in different regions of this land women accepted the role to be protector (with weapons) of the tribe or the homestead as readily as men. In several years of studying martial arts I have discovered that women who develop a discipline that at times requires ferocity, speed and agression are as capable as men. To act with this discipline does not rob them of their womanhood, nor their femininity.
Casting women in the role of mother and nuturer limits many women that have no interest in such a role. From my view these are free spirits incarnating at birth as women who could easily have been warriors in previous life experiences. In any new concept of fundamental freedoms, let us not become social planners based on what we think society should be like.
The need for an army to go offshore or enter into other countries is negligible. The need for a militia (each able bodied citizen) to defend the land they live in is understandable. Training with weapons and martial skills should be encouraged as well as a fully armed citizenry. Dabbling in the affairs of another country (such as the terrorist bombing of Kosavo and Serbia) is a misuse of a military force that I would never consent to nor support. It is playing the Leninist game of "the end justifies the means."
A military that technically can mount or maintain a defense against external force (with weapons that the individual is unlikely to possess)has a very good use, but never available to turn inward on the citizens (such as is being done now with terrorist trainings in major cities by the federal military).
Not on this topic, but a point exclusive to women - abortion is a religious issue, not an issue of public policy. Those who are offended by it should definitely not pursue such a course, nor should it be supported by public funding of any kind. I have known reincarnation to be the basis of life from my own childhood to this day. If my mother had chosen not to bear a fetus to term and raise the incarnate being that inhabited the child, I would have incarnated where a woman wanted to have me as her son. Freedom does mean freedom, not slavery to another person's religious beliefs.
"And as it is appointed unto men
once to die,but after this the judgement
Hebrews 9:27
Please do not bring in Pagan supperstition.
Please keep this discussion to reality.
The basis of our culture is Judeo-Christian and Western Civilization.This combination works so well we are the most advanced culture on earth.
Do not point to the ways of lesser nations and
cultures.They are in their condition because their ways are not as good as ours.
It is better to return to the ways of
society, before the the destructive influence of
Socialism/Communism.
Those ways worked and worked well,and are the foundation of our sucess.
Your religion earl, is based on as much superstition as any other. The only difference is your faith and belief (which you have every right to) versus that of another in reincarnation. This discussion is not closed to people of different faiths so if you want to start a discussion of the relative merits and evils of Judeo-Christian religions, start another thread. Meanwhile lets get this one back on track with the citizenship of women.
ARISTOCRACY: "Government by those with inherited titles or THOSE WHO BELONG TO A PRIVILEGED CLASS."
The making of America-The substance and meaning of the Consitution.(page44) W.Cleon Skousen
The National Center for Constitutional Studies
Washington, D.C.
By giving CITIZENS privileges, you create an ARISTOCRACY.
Citizenship is not something given to someone by another. You are here, you are part of society in some way, you are a citizen. Laws that govern citizenship are an anomaly, a strange aberration of the squeaks at the top of a hierarchy.
As to women voting, I think it is ridiculous. They should never be voting, and neither should men. It's patently absurd. If you presume that there is an enlightened electorate (a real stretch) then your assumption is that each person is enlightened and capable (your vote makes a difference claptrap)of voting based on an intelligent evaluation of information. Which means any citizen would make a fine official, politician, bureaucrat, squeak.
I favor Gerry Spence's idea - not voting - lottery for local reps and senators - all able thinking citizens eligible (no need for campaign finance reform). Lottery for local mayors, governors, assemblypersons, etc. It couldn't produce a bunch of people any worse than the pollution of the white house, cabinet, supreme (?) court, congress, senate, etc.
The lotto winners would be paid a stipend that might be less than their regular jobs but it would be a required service, like the draft, if they were picked. They in turn would select from ten or twenty people chosen by national lottery for president and the same for vice president. That would be the only actual voting election.
No need for women to vote unless they were one of the lotto winners for the house of representatives or the senate of a particular state. No need for the illusory power of voting for us men either. We all have better things to do on a Tuesday evening. (Tuesdays - great idea, let's be sure everyone can't vote! Make it hard!)
As to the success of this country because of Christianity - sure as long as you don't count the dead bodies of the indians, chinese, phillipines, cubans, central americans, slavery of the browns, world wars (and the War tax which became the present day income tax) and the thievery of the federal reserve squeakery. All done by good Christians.
huuuk,
Just a reminder--the whole concept of this forum is centered on the "Foundations of the Ideal State," not the one in which we live. This Ideal State would be made up of those willing to live by its laws, and willing to take on the responsibility to vote and hold up their end of the citizen compact. The only way a people can be free is if they are allowed to govern themselves--and that is only successful when those people are moral individuals, (no matter what their religious inclinations) believing in a common code of right and wrong, and upholding that code in their lives and in their participation in the governing process. Voting in the Ideal State is a necessary part of its existence. I especially like the stipulation in the citizen compact stating that voting is necessary to maintain citizenship.
I wholly agree, though, with Gerry Spence, under our current system of government. I believe a lottery would actually improve government as we now know it, since then the privileged elite wouldn't be able to control who assumes the politically powerful positions in this country.
On the subject of women voting, here's a quote from a letter which Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John Adams, while he was attending the first Continental Congress. (Spelling and punctuation have been preserved as she used them.)
March 31, 1776
"I long to hear that you have declared an independancy--and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
"That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly estabilshed as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend."
(I would temper her statement to read "Remember most men would be tyrants if they could".)
And one more excerpt from a letter dated May 7, 1776:
"I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives."
I think I'll let that do for now. Abigail speaks wisdom far beyond her informal education would suggest--and I would suggest that while men and women have ofttimes far differing talents and roles, that does not constitute grounds to allow men a privilege (as helpfully defined by earl for us) by disallowing a portion of the adult citizenry an active part in self-governance.
I am much in agreement with patriot's mother except for one statement - "The only way a people can be free is if they are allowed to govern themselves" My disagreement nestles in the word "allowed." It is in the presumption that the individual is allowed by someone other than him or herself to be themselves. The ideal state cannot be hierarchical but rather non-authoritarian to an extreme degree.
Richard Mayberry makes an excellent reference to the two valid laws of mankind in his book "Whatever Happened to Justice."
1 - Fulfill what you have agreed to fulfill.
2 - Do not interfere in your neighbors business.
I take this to mean that any action you take upon your own person is entirely your business.(privately for those actions that might interfere with anothers freedom - No one should unwillingly be subjected to witnessing your preference for nudity, self abuse, etc.) Do not impose your will or manipulate (fraud) any other entity for whatever purpose. Common forums would have agreed upon codes of conduct, none of which would include any recognition of one person's authority over another (barring conduct of interference in the freedom of others.)
huuuk,
Thank you for pointing out my editing error. :o) Sometimes I'm about cross-eyed at the end of preparing a post, and I miss things once in a while. I would, if you don't mind, like to revise that sentence to read:
"The only way a people can be free is if they govern themselves."
One of the founders said, (and I paraphrase), 'The only way a people can be free is if they govern themselves. The fewer restraints there are within, the more there must be without. Their passions forge their fetters.'
I agree completely with the principles of your argument, and appreciate your bringing that incongruity to the front.
Women in the military have a long and illustrious history. If military sevice is to be mandatory for citizens, it should be mandatory for all citizens. However, consider someone with mild cerebral palsy, could they meet the standards for military service? What about other similar situations?
I guess what I'm getting at is this, if we MUST have mandatory military service, it is the right and duty of ALL QUALIFIED citizens to serve and to be allowed to serve, and to serve, whenever possible and not damaging to the service, in the branch and type of unit that they desire.
When I served, I had my doubts about women, but years taught me that I didn't care about sex, ethnic background, religious beliefs (or lack thereof); I only cared if the were professionals and I could trust them with my life and the lives of my troops. Folks, that is the bottom line and to deny that opportunity to serve based on one's sex, ethnic background, religion, etc., is not liberty or freedom.
Thomas,
We're not barring women from the military here--just not conscripting them.
An important concept is not being addressed here. Women are trained differently than men, and not necessarily to their or society's advantage. A girl held to equal standards as those expected of her brother will develop into a sovereign citizen and take an equal place in society, thus making this discussion unnecessary and moot. Disagreeing with how women are trained by the present society is no reason to deny them full sovereignty and participation in the next.
For Tom,
I have a problem with the idea that membership in a hate group somehow makes you better than persons who have chosen to relate as equals. You referred to your wife as a feminist. I'm sure that you did not mean to say that your wife is a sexist bigot. But, my experience with feminists (I was married to one) parallels my experience with the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party in terms of mentality, morality and rhetoric.
Could we come up with a term for an intelligent, responsible, self-actualized woman that doesn't infer that she is taking orders from the National Organization of Women or some other homosexist hate group? How would you like it if she complimented you by saying you would make a good Nazi?
Where did I say or imply that membership in a hate group makes one better than anyone else?
fem·i·nism (fm-nzm)
n. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
The movement organized around this belief.
Nowhere in the definition states that NOW and the hate it spews towards men and women who disagree with it is the vanguard of feminism. That's a media illusion. I stand by both of my June 18, 2000 posts above.
Tom,
I looked the word feminism up in several dictionaries and got results similar to yours. So theoretically, you are right. However, you risk alienating the brightest and best of the female gender by using a term that has come to mean hate groups, and impugns individual accomplishment, suggesting instead that accomplishment is somehow the result of group membership.
My reason for bringing it up is purely semantic and appeals to a level of sensitivity not in evidence in this particular forum. In today's world, feminism is to sexism as aryanism is to racism. Be careful how you use it.
Sagitta,
Although semantics may seem trivial to some (how can mere words cause damage, after all?), political correctness has successfully branded certain words as "evil." Not that the rules are clear cut at all; a black person who uses the word "••••••" with his friends is expressing his "culture" and invoking a sense of "community," while a white person who uses this word--in any context--is a bigoted racist.
Feminism today is radically different than what the original founders of the movement (Cady & Stanton, for example) intended it to be. Most of the early feminists were against abortion.
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." --Elizabeth Cady Stanton, October 16, 1878
As a modern movement, feminism has destroyed the sanctity of marriage, abrogated the responsibility of motherhood, and done more to diminish respect for women as a whole than the entire pornography industry.
Please see the link below for an article I wrote on modern-day feminism.
http://www.rightgrrl.com/2000/femhurt.html
I disagree that we need to find another word to describe free-thinking, conservative women, however. As long as true feminists shrug off the word, NOW et al will own it. They will put us in a box and dismiss us because we don't fit into their definition of what a "feminist" should be. Many organizations today are attempting to reclaim feminism (Feminists for Life, for instance). I personally call myself a feminist because anyone who knows me knows that I am extremely politically conservative and pro-life.
As a teacher, I learned that one of the most effective ways to teach children was to present them with a seemingly contradictory situation, which challenges them to analyze and understand how the new information can be logical and true. I feel the same way about feminism: having conservative women openly and frequently demand to be included in the feminist movement will demand that society further examine (and hopefully reject) modern liberal feminism.
You should see people's faces when they walk into my office and see a poster of Oscar Wilde, Langston Hughes, and Pat Buchanan. Or when I wear my pro-life feminist ribbons, and they ask what they're for. How can a highly educated woman with a picture of a black poet and homosexual playright possibly be politically conservative and pro-life?
We don't need another word. We need to reclaim the original meaning of the word.
Our Founding Fathers were right. Women should not vote. In my opinion, they should not be on juries either. Because of their wonderful nurturing nature, they do not think things out. This is fine in raising chhildren, but devastating to a nation. Women overwhelmingly support the socialist state because they want government to take care of everyone. Men should not be allowed to vote unless they are property owners and taxpayers.
Islamic people should not be allowed to become citizens because their religion demands an anti-Christian theocracy controlled by insane madmen. every Islamic nation on earth is nothing more than a primitive cesspool of murder and corruption.
Manlyman:
Please allow me to quote Joy (Mrs. C.S.) Lewis: "Were you trying to be offensive, or just merely stupid?"
You obviously haven't spent much time reading women writers. Drawing the line between "intellect" and "soul", as C.S. Lewis's unfortunate colleage did, along the lines of sex is a dangerous thing to do. Those women who you do not believe exist will appear and, logically, methodically, tear you to shreds.
I'm not even going to touch your statements on Islam.
I cannot believe this discussion...too funny. Why on earth would serving in the military be a deciding factor in whether or not you get the right to vote. Let's see, why don't we make if you can bear children or not the basis for whether or not you have the right to vote. Sorry guys, guess you are out of luck. Women will just have to stand up and vote for you. But I'm sure that you will have political say through your wives...sorry...too funny.