ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, November 09, 2012

An unexpected argument against suffrage

One doesn't usually expect to see the New York Times present arguments against women's suffrage:
On average, women make up about 20 percent of lawmakers in the United States and abroad. We found that when women constituted 20 percent of a decision-making body that operates by majority rule, the average woman took up only about 60 percent of the floor time used by the average man. Women were perceived — by themselves and their peers — as more quiescent and less effective. They were more likely to be rudely interrupted; they were less likely to strongly advocate their policy preferences; and they seldom mentioned the vulnerable. These gender dynamics held even when adjusting for political ideology (beliefs about liberalism and egalitarianism) and income.

In contrast, the men in our experiment did not speak up less or appear to lose influence when they were in the minority.

In our experiment, groups with few women set a minimum income of about $21,600 per year for a family of four — which is close to the federal poverty level for a family of four. But once women made up 60 to 80 percent or more of a group, they spoke as much as men, raised the needs of the vulnerable and argued for redistribution (and influenced the rhetoric of their male counterparts). They also encountered fewer hostile interruptions.

Significantly, they elevated the safety net to as much as $31,000. The most talkative participants in these majority-female groups advocated for even more government generosity: $36,000, enough to catapult many poor families into the ranks of the lower middle class.
Translation: if you think the nation is in economic difficulty now, just wait until more women are elected to office!

Right now, spending on social services was $2.10 trillion, if we limit that definition to Social Security, Unemployment/Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration.  If we apply the researcher's numbers, a female-majority government would increase that by 43.5 percent, to $3.01 trillion.  And if the most activist, "most talkative" women were in charge, the bill would come to $3.5 trillion.

Total revenue: $2.165 trillion.  Deficit in the max-women scenario: $2.67 trillion, more than double the current $1.27 trillion.

Ironically, to the numerate individual, this is not a logical argument for more women in elected office.  This is an argument against female suffrage.

68 Comments:

Anonymous Despair November 09, 2012 7:41 AM  

Probably why Communists and Fascists were so eager to give women the vote.

Anonymous Ben Dover November 09, 2012 7:43 AM  

My state just became the first without a single male elected to US Senate or Congress. Almost everyone in local government, from the mayor to the entire state senate is also a woman.

The Mayans were correct.

Anonymous VD November 09, 2012 7:50 AM  

My state just became the first without a single male elected to US Senate or Congress. Almost everyone in local government, from the mayor to the entire state senate is also a woman.

The obvious scientific hypothesis is that government spending will increase in your state in 2013. Do observe and let us know if that's correct.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie November 09, 2012 7:51 AM  

Our current and next Senate President is Teresa Paiva-Weed.

Nuff Said

HKC

Blogger Setracse November 09, 2012 7:57 AM  

Can an argument against suffrage apply appropriately into libertarian philosophy? It's a question that has been bugging me for the past two weeks.

Anonymous Rally November 09, 2012 8:01 AM  

36000 to sit around? Sign me up for that. Good luck finding someone to replace the taxes I pay. But then again, who needs taxes? Deficits don't matter.

Anonymous Mr Green Man November 09, 2012 8:04 AM  

It would have been far more telling to hear the groups set not just the family of four income, but the minimum income support they wanted for four more classes of people:

1) single men, no children
2) single women, no children
3) single men, one child
4) single women, one child

We would have learned too much with that statistic.

Anonymous DT November 09, 2012 8:07 AM  

But...but...that money would go to help the children! And the vibrant minorities! All of them oppressed by EvilWhiteMales(TM).

You just don't want a $2.67 trillion deficit because you hate women and minorities. Sexciss! Raciss!

Anonymous Toby Temple November 09, 2012 8:09 AM  

The article offers a lot of rhetorical arguments in favor of more women in public office. The author concludes that it is best for the 99% if there are more women in congress. This is due to the belief that women will speak more for the poor, the needy, the vulnerable.



Anonymous Rantor November 09, 2012 8:10 AM  

The vast majority are not numerate. Neither were the two presidential candidates. Numeracy is no longer desired and therefore not properly taught in our public schools.

Anonymous DT November 09, 2012 8:13 AM  

Can an argument against suffrage apply appropriately into libertarian philosophy? It's a question that has been bugging me for the past two weeks.

The reason it's bugging you is because you mistake suffrage for a freedom or right. It is not. The *privilege* of participating in government should be based upon one's qualifications.

Would you let anyone declare a "right" to be a doctor, walk into an operating room, and slice open a patient's chest for open heart surgery? No? Well the decisions that face a nation can be as technical as those facing a surgeon, and the consequences far worse. Why the hell do we allow anyone to participate in those decisions? Why does someone like the ObamaPhone lady have any say what so ever in how the nation is run?

A person doesn't have to vote to be free. Indeed, as Vox has pointed out before, democracy is often a threat to individual liberty.

Anonymous daddynichol November 09, 2012 8:17 AM  

Over the course of the next 12 months, I predict at least 5 major events will occur due to changes in leadership and political demographics:

1. The support and passage of the UN Small Arms treaty and/or more strict semi auto gun control laws.
2. Immigration controls will evaporate. Not only will the door be opened wide, it will be removed entirely in one form or another. Also expect additional 3rd world imports from Muslim countries.
3. A more aggressive "round up" of what will be identified as potential domestic terriorists (male and white).
4. Societial break down will rapidly accelerate. Blatant attacks on whites, successful individuals, businesses, economic decline, etc.

Do I have source info for the above? Nope, but based on observation over the course of 30 years, it's not hard to spot the trends.

Anonymous paradox November 09, 2012 8:20 AM  

To meme Ben Franklin... Those who would give up essential liberty for the ability to vote, deserve neither liberty or the ability to vote.

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 8:23 AM  

The spending will increase. Every single left wing pundit I read after the election is practically drooling over the prospect of raising taxes on the wealthy and Obama spending like crazy.

As the debt racks up they will have Krugman on speed dial who in a completely non-soothing and nasally voice will assure them that debt doesn't matter.

Anonymous Stingray November 09, 2012 8:26 AM  

The new Bush. I can't help but wonder how the women's vote will swing when he runs for higher office?

Anonymous Stingray November 09, 2012 8:27 AM  

Also, if he ran libertarian and is charming as he looks, how many more women would claim libertarianism? It would grow and the RNC would be flummoxed.

Anonymous Despair November 09, 2012 8:36 AM  

http://i.imgur.com/Swjyh.jpg

Blogger Nate November 09, 2012 8:44 AM  

"1. The support and passage of the UN Small Arms treaty and/or more strict semi auto gun control laws."

This isn't going to happen... because during the process of the adoption the state department will sit down with the president and explain that in 2 weeks the number of AKs and ARs in the US have doubled... and ammo sales are through the roof... and the nation is literally preparing for war... against him.

This is exactly what happened to clinton post waco. Note the distinct right turn his administration took.

The nation arming up is a good thing... so I hope he actually does try it. That way when the financial collapse actually happens there will be fewer people for me to have to supply.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan November 09, 2012 8:44 AM  

"...the belief that women will speak more for the poor, the needy, the vulnerable."

Trouble is, they need to first take the money from productive (mostly white) men, who create virtually all wealth.

Anonymous Thumper November 09, 2012 8:51 AM  

http://i.imgur.com/tagBF.jpg

Anonymous stg58 November 09, 2012 8:54 AM  

Vox,

Is this an argument against women's suffrage, or women holding political office? I am against, both for the record.

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 9:12 AM  

The nation arming up is a good thing... so I hope he actually does try it. That way when the financial collapse actually happens there will be fewer people for me to have to supply.

Yep. Obama has been one of the best gun salesman of all times. The NRA should have endorsed him for that reason alone.

----------------------

After thinking about this study and interesting followup would be to see level of military aggression from a predominantly female legislature. Would they be passive an just play social games with the military, or would they take drone strikes and foreign wars to a whole new level?

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 9:15 AM  

The strain is obviously getting to him. More evidence of the depressive and emotional side of Obama that appears now again.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2012 9:17 AM  

Thanks Vox for reminding me of Nixon's Family Assistance Plan (FAP) in 1970, which set the minimum family income in 1970 dollars to $20,000 for a family of four. This particular plan originated with Milton Friedman and was pushed by Nixon as a replacement for the plethora of Federal programs that worked very badly at dealing with the poverty issue. The FAP would be administered by the IRS. Any family of four that did not make $20k for the year would get a check in the mail for the difference. No more Food Stamps. No more WIC. No more housing assistance. No more AFDC. All of the social worker full-employment acts would be repealed and abolished. Of course, the FAP went down in flames when it got to Congress. Maybe it will raise its head again in the talks to deal with entitlements. According to Friedman, the FAP would be much cheaper than all the entitlement programs put together, would preserve economic freedom, encourage work effort, significantly reduce the government bureaucracy, and would be incredibly cheap to administer. Like the other Friedmaniacs at the time, I was enthusiastic at the time. Of course, inflation has played hell with this $20k figure the past 42 years, so I was pleasantly amused to see that figure used in the article.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2012 9:20 AM  

1. Buy Gold
2. Vote for women
3. Profit

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2012 9:25 AM  

1. Buy Gold
2. Vote for women
3. Profit


Egads! You've solved the mystery of the Underpants Gnomes (Phase 1, collect underpants...Phase 3, profit)!

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2012 9:31 AM  

The nation arming up is a good thing... so I hope he actually does try it. That way when the financial collapse actually happens there will be fewer people for me to have to supply.

I have mixed feelings about arming a peasant who was too foolish to secure his own rifle.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2012 9:37 AM  

You've solved the mystery of the Underpants Gnomes

Yup. Figured out the ???

Anonymous Toby Temple November 09, 2012 9:42 AM  

1. Buy Gold
2. Vote for women
3. Profit


Genius!

Anonymous Viking November 09, 2012 9:46 AM  

It seems you could also make the point that women are simply less effective at representing their constituents. If women become timid when the minority but men do not then it seem that choosing a man to speak for you in government would be the more effective choice. Just a thought.

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 9:58 AM  

DonReynolds,

Sign me up! That $20,000 a year is $119,281.96 this year according to BLS.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2012 10:07 AM  

Unexpected argument against open carry: It helps immigrant small-business owner protect himself from diversity

Anonymous The other skeptic November 09, 2012 10:11 AM  


"1. The support and passage of the UN Small Arms treaty and/or more strict semi auto gun control laws."

This isn't going to happen... because during the process of the adoption the state department will sit down with the president and explain that in 2 weeks the number of AKs and ARs in the US have doubled... and ammo sales are through the roof... and the nation is literally preparing for war... against him.


Now that he has been re-elected, I suspect he does not actually care about these things, anyway.

Most politicians are opportunists.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 09, 2012 10:15 AM  

Nate..."The nation arming up is a good thing... so I hope he actually does try it. That way when the financial collapse actually happens there will be fewer people for me to have to supply."

In the Middle Ages in Europe, certain tribes were forbidden to keep or bear arms, nor could they serve their masters in an armed capacity. It seems they understood that any arms and skills with arms that they provided would someday be turned on themselves. It is just as true today, Nate. Any weapons you provide will ultimately be turned against you. Your comrads today will become your worst threats tomorrow. Better to keep the weapons to yourself or destroy the ones you do not need.

Anonymous daddynichol November 09, 2012 10:22 AM  

@ Nate:
This isn't going to happen... because during the process of the adoption the state department will sit down with the president and explain that in 2 weeks the number of AKs and ARs in the US have doubled... and ammo sales are through the roof... and the nation is literally preparing for war... against him.

This is exactly what happened to clinton post waco. Note the distinct right turn his administration took.

The nation arming up is a good thing... so I hope he actually does try it. That way when the financial collapse actually happens there will be fewer people for me to have to supply.


I sincerely hope you're correct, but this administration has acted with impunity thus far and will rapidly escalate regulations and controls for they believe is their "divine" right. Obama may use executive order, but if they go through a sham of legislative action, the neutered Republicans will bow down and go along in a show of bipartisan support for the sake of national security. They may not ban all guns, but they will restrict caliber, magazine capacity, modifications, use of single action only, huge tax on ammo or ammo supplies, etc.

Anonymous Orion November 09, 2012 10:25 AM  

I'd give Nate the benefit of a doubt regarding being able to discriminate between a potential threat and a potential ally. I don't see society completely atomizing to every man's hand set against his neighbor. New groupings will form from crisis as they have throughout history.

Blogger Desert Cat November 09, 2012 10:45 AM  

Stilicho November 09, 2012 9:25 AM

1. Buy Gold
2. Vote for women
3. Profit

Egads! You've solved the mystery of the Underpants Gnomes (Phase 1, collect underpants...Phase 3, profit)!


Except! Except, dear intrepids, you're only profiting in nominal terms. The value of the gold stays the same.

Anonymous yukonyon November 09, 2012 11:01 AM  

I guess that at the NYT, they feel that they are not therapists, and math should just solve its own problems.

Blogger Elmo Q. Shangnaster November 09, 2012 11:17 AM  

This article doesn't say anything that any man with a wit of sense doesn't already know.

Women are expensive.

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 11:33 AM  

Are there any government around the world where the majority of the legislature are women and what is their balance sheet like?

Anonymous Noah B. November 09, 2012 11:40 AM  

"Except! Except, dear intrepids, you're only profiting in nominal terms. The value of the gold stays the same."

And by the time you pay capital gains taxes, you lose -- most of the time. The whole damned thing is rigged.

Anonymous Crispy November 09, 2012 11:40 AM  

As long as the ratio is below 60-80%, they talk less? Not sure about that--look at couples where they make up 50% but monopolize the conversation.

Also interesting that one of the study directors is a professor at Brigham Young University, named after the man with 55 wives (98.2% women 1.8% man).

Anonymous Daniel November 09, 2012 11:52 AM  

All they have to do is call this "The Paradox of Women's Suffrage" and then the solution becomes to only elect women, so as to resolve the strain.

To absolutely mangle about three maxims, two myths, and the whole of history, the sociological principle is this:

"When all you have is the Sword of Damocles, everything is a Gordian knot."

Anonymous JartStar November 09, 2012 11:52 AM  

If women in the legislature do increase the debt the onus is on them for doing so, but the men running the show set the stage for this through their actions.

Anonymous Daniel November 09, 2012 11:57 AM  

As long as the ratio is below 60-80%, they talk less? Not sure about that--look at couples where they make up 50% but monopolize the conversation.

Uhh. Look at single women. They talk 100% of the time. So yeah, the wife who does 80% of the talking is still talking less than the one you should have put a ring on, had you liked it.

Anonymous Rantor November 09, 2012 12:07 PM  

The problem with universal adult suffrage is you allow people who are anti-liberty to have a vote. In the end there is a constant grating and occassional chopping away of liberty in the name of some ill-defined and inappropriately named, common good.


Anonymous Jack Amok November 09, 2012 12:08 PM  

The reason it's bugging you is because you mistake suffrage for a freedom or right. It is not. The *privilege* of participating in government should be based upon one's qualifications.

Your doctor analogy is incorrect. Sure, anyone ought to be able to declare themselves a doctor and, if the patient is willing, operate. The difference with voting is the voter - at least with our current form of government - is allowed to force the patient into the operating room for Herr Doktor Mengele to experiment on in the name of the eldritch horrors he calls gods.

The privilige of participating in group decision making ought to be based on a) ones contributions to the group, and b) ones ability to put the group's welfare above one's own when voting.

Part a DQs a lot of people, but it's part b that disqualifies most women, because they can't put the health of the nation above their need to feel the moral superiority of handing out someone elses money and sticking their noses in everyone elses business.

This is exactly what happened to clinton post waco. Note the distinct right turn his administration took.

Nate, I really hope you are right, but I don't think you are. Obama isn't Clinton, and the people he listens to are not the penny-shaving grifters that Clinton listened to. The Obama admin reacted to the 2010 Congressional swing far differently than Clinton reacted to the 1994 one. Clinton shifted right, Obama doubled down.

I suggest investing in strategic metals (e.g. brass and lead, in appropriate forms).


1. Buy Gold
2. Vote for women
3. Profit


But though we had plenty of gold,
there was nothing our gold could buy.
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said
If you let chicks vote you die.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2012 12:31 PM  

I'm assuming one thing: women will pass a bill taking capital gains off gold (including jewelry). Cause gold (jewelry) is like an investment, and it punishes women savers if gold (jewelry) has capital gains tax on it.

During Wiemar Hyperinflation the real value of gold doubled. Considering the rest of the economy collapses, in real terms your purchasing power would climb at least 100% and more likely multiples of that.

Anonymous VryeDenker November 09, 2012 12:41 PM  

SOmething else I found disheartening from the voter breakdown graph was that married women did not vote the same as married men. A house divided indeed.

Anonymous JCclimber November 09, 2012 12:48 PM  

@Roundtine:

That's funny! I see how you slipped a joke into the middle of your post.
(for the humor impaired, he called women savers).

When you consider how many women (about 96%) think that diamonds are a good financial investment, and how saving 50% on something you didn't need to buy saved your family money, and buying vastly overpriced homes because homes never go down in value, methinks your "women savers" is a pretty small minority. A significant fraction of whom comment on this blog, which perhaps is distorting your perception of their gender's mindset.

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 09, 2012 12:50 PM  

But once women made up 60 to 80 percent or more of a group, they spoke as much as men, raised the needs of the vulnerable and argued for redistribution (and influenced the rhetoric of their male counterparts). They also encountered fewer hostile interruptions.

In other words: the woman started bitching.

Anonymous Roundtine November 09, 2012 1:05 PM  

@JCclimber

It's a joke, but it isn't. Cap gains on gold discriminates against women savers who put more of their assets into gold (jewelry). That's my public line and the jewelers across America will back me up!

Blogger Joshua_D November 09, 2012 1:11 PM  

"But once women made up 60 to 80 percent or more of a group, they spoke as much as men, raised the needs of the vulnerable and argued for redistribution"

So tell me again ... exactly how do those polygamous marriages work?

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 09, 2012 1:12 PM  


Secession, unlike divorce will shove the bill down the beotches throat, rather than the traditional route, down the Father's.

Blogger IM2L844 November 09, 2012 1:38 PM  

Time to give women the responsibility, er, I mean right to be among the infantry on the front lines in the thick of armed conflicts. They could be made scouts.

Anonymous JI November 09, 2012 1:40 PM  

Let's put all such articles together and come to the obvious conclusion - a democracy works fine when married, white men are the only ones allowed to vote.

Blogger Bob Wallace November 09, 2012 1:48 PM  

"Time to give women the responsibility, er, I mean right to be among the infantry on the front lines"

Also loggers, steel-mill workers, oil rig workers, miners...and then there are the STEM jobs. But of course they want comfy easy indoor jobs...

Anonymous DT November 09, 2012 1:50 PM  

Jack Amok - Your doctor analogy is incorrect. Sure, anyone ought to be able to declare themselves a doctor and, if the patient is willing, operate. The difference with voting is the voter - at least with our current form of government - is allowed to force the patient into the operating room for Herr Doktor Mengele to experiment on in the name of the eldritch horrors he calls gods.

When I wrote that I was picturing someone shoving their way into the operating room and taking the saw, but that didn't come through. I like your clarification, particularly as to what would qualify / disqualify someone. Thank you.

Anonymous Tad November 09, 2012 2:10 PM  

@VryeDenker SOmething else I found disheartening from the voter breakdown graph was that married women did not vote the same as married men. A house divided indeed.

It's of no importance at all if a wife votes differently from her husband. Unless the wife or the husband are such control freaks that you can bet that they won't be married much longer, let alone voting like their spouse.

Anonymous Stilicho November 09, 2012 2:26 PM  


In other words: the woman started bitching.


Then comes the bitching feedback loop spiraling out of control.

Anonymous Anonymous November 09, 2012 2:28 PM  

SOmething else I found disheartening from the voter breakdown graph was that married women did not vote the same as married men. A house divided indeed.

Not a secret. It's been that way for a long time. Probably got worse in the last 20 years. The important break is between married women and single women. Single women overwhelmingly vote for the Dem statists.

Now, look at policies the Dems push - among them, support for single mothers, lots of it. The statist D's have been creating their own voting bloc, via social programs, for years. The statist R's did not even see it - "defense of marriage" to them is all wrapped up in homogamy, and ends there. "No-fault" divorce, aka unilateral contract voidance? Eh, too busy fighting gay marriage to worry about that.

40.8% of births are now to unmarried women. They may not vote in every election, but when they do, they vote for statist D's. And their children? How will they vote?

Here is what the experiment reveals: women are on Team Woman, not Team Civilization. Women will gladly sign up for short term profits that destroy institutions in the long term. This week's election is simply more evidence.

I rarely have any use for Camille Paglia, but she's right about women, and civilization, and grass huts.

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 09, 2012 4:11 PM  

It's of no importance at all if a wife votes differently from her husband. Unless the wife or the husband are such control freaks that you can bet that they won't be married much longer, let alone voting like their spouse.

Saith the homosexual.

Anonymous JCclimber November 09, 2012 6:33 PM  

Just 30 minutes ago I heard a young, engaged to be married, female with hamster on full display, as we all just left a meeting.
She voted for the Kalifornia prop to raise sales tax "for the children", despite her fiance telling her about the fact that THEY will be the ones directly impacted by this measure.
"But my sister is a teacher, and you wouldn't believe how many furlough days she had to take in the last year!"
And just because our income is going up, doesn't mean we can't pay our fair share of taxes, I'm not a hypocrite who believes one thing in college and changes her mind when she starts to make money in the real world".

My favorite: "You've got to support the schools because without public education, where would California's future be?"

Yes, that last one is a VERY good question....

Anonymous Tad November 09, 2012 7:59 PM  

@Loki

It's of no importance at all if a wife votes differently from her husband. Unless the wife or the husband are such control freaks that you can bet that they won't be married much longer, let alone voting like their spouse.

Saith the homosexual.


Get over it.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet November 09, 2012 9:00 PM  

Women,Children and Society have Suffered long enough!

End Womens Suffrage Now
The Man Show

DannyR

Anonymous R. Right November 10, 2012 10:40 AM  

The situation we are in now is an inevitable result of the 19th ammendment. Female suffrage is destroying all of the Western world. Our successor civilizations, China and Islam, will not make that mistake.

Anonymous Question November 10, 2012 3:05 PM  

I'm not directing this at VD because I realize he writes stuff like this just for troll bait but some of you don't seem to understand how even advocating disenfranchisement for a group of people because you don't like the way they vote is a dangerous precedent for your own pet causes. Say for instance 20 years from now when homosexual marriage is legal and accepted in most states would you want it to be a valid and reasonable arguement to claim since bible thumpers vote against homosexual marriage we should start thinking about removing their ability to vote? Do you guys really want to start talking about eliminating peoples right to vote when you're in the minority on most issues?

Blogger Lud VanB November 10, 2012 6:41 PM  

there are no valid argument against woman suffrage

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts