Tuesday, June 27, 2006

More Christian Lady Blogging

Now this is interesting: A Biblical justification for limiting suffrage to men (or even to men with property). It started with one of those games where people are asked to answer questions, and the blogger answered a question about what she'd like to change in the world like this:

If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "pool." I'd like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.

She didn't get into any trouble. Her commenters pretty much agreed that married women shouldn't have the vote, and the blogger herself explained why:

About woman's suffrage…I think it's a matter of covenantal thinking and headship. If women are biblically to be under the headship of husbands and fathers, then those men are to represent the household when it comes to voting. Pieter was a judge at a polling place in a recent election here, and he told of several couples that came in who were registered for different political parties and ostensibly cancelled out each other's votes. I think Nickey has a point about women who are heads of households for various reasons, but Deborah's exception notwithstanding, men are to be the elders sitting in the gates, guiding public affairs; yet we find Christian women today having no compunctions about running for political offices and seeking leadership as "ministers" of governmental affairs. I'm obviously not against women having opinions or giving godly wisdom and counsel in certain spheres, but I believe that the feminization of both the church and the political realm is related to the increased involvement of women through voting and policy decision making. As for property ownership: I think thta the welfare state has become such a problem because of the ability of people to vote themselves largesse; property owners are often much more rooted and less likely to vote for politicians who advocate the theft of their property, thus creating a much more stable economy and society. Others have written extensively on this, but that's my controversial position in a nutshell.

I'm sure the Islamic fundamentalists would agree with this line of thinking. Probably the Jewish fundamentalists, too.

Another commenter posed a slightly different reason for no suffrage for women: Women vote for the wrong candidates:

I completely agree with both removing women's suffrage and coupling voting rights with property ownership. I am always hesitant to admit my views on the suffrage movement, but I strongly feel that our nation made a grievous error when we allowed women many of the same "rights" as men. First off, I think that voting should be a family affair with the wife putting in her input, but the man ultimately deciding on which candidate he votes for. I think women are too emotional and often vote for the "bleeding heart liberal" cause because it feels right to them. When I tell folks my view on this they always ask if I vote. Yes, I do because my husband wants me to.

About voting rights tied to property ownership, I think this is a great point I haven't thought much about. I also liked the comment about not letting welfare recipients vote. I grew up in the central valley of California and was often dismayed at the sheer number of welfare recipients who were always for the Dems because they knew they would be allowed more years of laziness if they got the right guy in there. Not that I vote party lines and think it's only the Dems that are liberal and give out way too many handouts, I don't. I just know that there are jobs available to those who want to work, even if it's working in the fields picking fruit, etc., but many choose not to because of the welfare perks they get. If voting was tied to owning property then more people would value home ownership and would more seriously consider the politicians, school levies, etc. they are voting for.

The Islamic fundamentalists also think that women are too emotional to act in the public sector. That is one of the reasons why most interpretations of the shariah law argue that women can't be judges. I have always found it very odd that such emotional people can be put in charge of one of the most important jobs there are: that of bringing up children. It's also hard to see why a blog comment by a woman would be taken seriously if women are so emotional that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Indeed, it's hard to see why anything that women say should be taken seriously, including Bible interpretation.

It would be interesting to learn if taking away women's suffrage is one of the plans for the future Dominionistic United States of America.
Thanks to moiv in my comments for the original link to the Prairie Muffin Manifesto (like the fundamentalist Rules for women) and to Q Grrl for the link to this blogpost.