8 Comments

  1. Love your blog. Love all your books. We’ve bought and read almost all of them. But you have some feminism in you that you are blind to. It shows up in your books and this…why post this? Virtue signalling? That’s the best case scenario. It’s the only thing I’d love to see be throttled down.

  2. Wow. Interesting discussion! I don’t usually weigh in on posts from Survival Blog but I’m pretty astonished to find a reader who would think that women should not be allowed to vote!

    Last time I ran into that kind of thinking was in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. The funny thing was, at the time I was flying Navy jets in a squadron that had plenty of women proudly serving and fighting along side our men. And even though we were helping to save the Saudi’s butts from Saddam, it still drove the Saudi Arabians nuts that we would allow women to fly jets, drive vehicles, ride in the front of crew busses, and yes, even vote!!! The Saudi’s also consider women “property.”

    Many fringe beliefs fall back on religion as a justification for otherwise indefensible positions, be it polygamy, oppression, Jihad, or whatever. Using a distorted interpretation of passages from the Bible, the Koran, or any other ancient text doesn’t make it right.

    I was proud to serve alongside many honorable and heroic women during my 20-plus year military career. As a father, husband, Christian and veteran, the thought of denying these women any rights, or thinking of them as “property” merely because of their gender is revolting and quite honestly un-American.

    1. @Bax767
      The concept of “women not voting” is not really supposed to be framed in the light of women’s votes. (otherwise you do end up with something like Saudi Arabia.)
      The issue is that men and women think differently. There are exceptions, but in general a woman is more compassionate and a man is more authoritarian. As a result, those two votes often cancel each other out (not always, but in the majority of the time.) In a Democracy, this is an accepted practice. In a republic, it quite often defeats forward motion.
      Consider instead a “family vote” where the head of the household casts the vote for the family. The family discusses what their core beliefs are, comes to a resolution and then their vote represents their desire “as a family”. Traditionally, the head of the household is the man and he would cast the family vote.
      Land ownership is the traditional method of determining head of household status. I’m not sure how that would apply in today’s western culture (more women independent of family, renting instead of owning, etc…)
      This is what voting in a republic was supposed to represent. Modern feminism has twisted that so the concept of the “family” is entirely lost and it becomes about individual rights. With militant feminism who’s only desire is to make sure you “hear” them and what they want, along with a man who does not vote as a representative of his family, it devolves into a worthless selfish democracy. Remember, democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
      It’s part and parcel for the destruction of the family that our society is so bent on. Democracy will always tend towards selfish desires. Republic’s can also do that if the representative casting the vote does not truly represent the family, but democracies get to the selfish point quicker and usually with more violence and/or controversy. As far as I have read in history, democracies never recover. Republics occasionally recover.

      1. HJL, I would disagree with your two sentences: “The issue is that men and women think differently. There are exceptions, but in general a woman is more compassionate and a man is more authoritarian.”

        The difference is that women are more comfortable with government (what they view as security) and men are more comfortable with liberty.

Comments are closed.