Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Vox Day responds

A few days ago I asked "Why don't Republicans all agree that women have to be allowed to vote?" I was worried that people would think I was making a little straw man there, but Vox responds:
There is no evidence that women voting has been a positive development in any nation in the world. Should someone like to submit some for once, I'd be happy to examine it. I find it telling that no supporter of women's suffrage has yet been able to respond with anything but naked and unsupportable assertions.

So, perhaps Thoughts From Kansas would do well to consider a more salient question, namely, why would any Republican, or any non-Republican like myself … agree that women have to be allowed to vote?
Women are people. How's that for an argument? Women are people, and people have a right to self-determination, and voting is how people in democracies determine the direction their lives go. Vox apparently doesn't think much of democracy, but I'm not going to refight the battles of 1776 right now.

Vox tosses out bullshit statistics (Correlation between rising government spending and a women's vote? Do I really have to explain the gross methodological flaws in any such study?) and justifies his misogyny in various ways. And Jesus Christ, Singapore and Hong Kong are not democracies to be praised. One is a subservient to the repressive communist China, the other is a repressive regime that restricts free speech in ways that are intolerable. The fact that it's undemocratic is the least of its worries.

The problem voting rights fix is that some people can't vote. They aren't out there so that we can reduce crime, or have lower taxes, or whatever. Monarchal Great Britain abolished slavery before democratic America did, but that's not an argument for monarchy.

In a Kantian framework, he's treating all women as means to an end. That's not moral (it violates the Categorical Imperative) and it's not fair. If Vox were to "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law," would he advocate restricting the civil liberties of any person if some other person would benefit from that? What if that were a universal law, that anyone's vote could be taken away if doing so would achieve some laudable goal? What if it were Vox's vote, or Vox's right to speak freely?

Yeah, I didn't think so, either. It's just women, and the only way to justify keeping the vote from some people is if you are prepared to compromise their personhood. I'm prepared to defend the apparently radical notion that women are people and deserve all the rights that that entails, including the vote.