Continuing my conversation about whether women should vote, I think I may have found a way forward that respects both the fact that women will refuse the draft for women through the mechanism of voting, and that under the law, there is no way forward except for men and women to be equal under the law.
Let’s deal with these two issues one by one.
Women will never accept the draft for themselves, as long as women can vote. All women? No, of course not. There are a significant chunk of women who are indeed willing to put their own lives on the line for liberty. The problem is that these women are wildly outnumbered by the gynocentrists, who absolutely believe that women are special and entitled to male protection. The #HeForShe brigade. If we are going to treat this issue as one of gender, then the women who refuse any responsibility will vote in such a way that necessarily encompasses the women who are willing, able and even eager to accept their equal share of the burden of protecting our freedoms, even at the cost of their own lives.
Cancelling the draft is a moot point. If a situation arises that makes the draft the only reasonable choice, women will vote to impose it on all men and spare all women. In which case, women have no argument to make that they are equal. Women can’t logically have both, although god knows they will try.
Should women be absolutely equal under the law? I can’t talk my way out of this one: the answer is yes. Most of the problems arising from men not having some very significant rights are the direct result of the fact that women are not currently equal under the law. Women are a special protected class that enjoys more rights than men, and from that protection we get preferential treatment for women in custody disputes, in healthcare and education funding, in domestic violence services, in criminal sentencing, in reproductive rights. Women’s rights in these areas arise from the notion that women are special and must be awarded treatment that reflects their special status. Strict traditionalists argue that women are special and special treatment is therefore just.
There is absolutely no way to reconcile the idea that men should have rights that put them on equal footing with women in all aspects of life governed by laws and principles, and the idea that women are not and cannot be equal to men. To accept that women are special is to infantilize them – which requires that someone (men) assume responsibility for them. This is precisely how women wield their votes: they force all men to assume responsibility for them and their choices through progressive taxation and income redistribution. Women, in effect, insist that they are both equal and special.
Well, you can’t have it both ways.
What if we are not thinking about this using the correct framework, though? What if gender is not the most useful delineator of adult responsibility and equality? What if we allowed both men and women to choose their own status? You can’t be equal and special. You must be one or the other. Why should gender be the single factor that determines status? What if we used another metric?
It can’t be the draft. Imagine for a moment, that in accordance with the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, we linked the ability to vote to registering for the draft? It won’t work, and here’s why. Almost all men and almost all women will register for the draft, allowing most men and most women to vote. However, when it comes time to implementing the draft – when there is real blood on the line, women will renege. They will vote to absolve themselves of actual blood consequences. This will be nothing more than sophistry that brings us straight back into the original quagmire of women voting: women will vote to save themselves and sacrifice men.
I may have a solution for this.
Mandatory military service. Two years, including combat preparation. Full on bootcamp. No one has to enroll. The mandatory refers to ‘mandatory for voting’. No man or woman is required to take part in military service, but in refusing, they surrender their right to vote. Forever. You turn 18, and you have a choice to make. You enter into two years of military service, understanding that you will deployed mostly nationally to deal with weather emergencies and other public service projects as the government sees fit – essentially a huge standing National Guard, and upon honorable discharge, you walk away with the lifetime right to vote, male, female or other. Refuse the service, you do not vote. Ever.
I see a number of advantages to this system. First of all, gender is ripped out of the equation. Get pregnant during service and drop out? That’s fine. No vote. Decide it’s too tough and you’d rather go hiking in the Appalachians and smoke weed? Go ahead. No vote. Anyone can drop out any time for any reason, and all it costs is their vote. No exceptions. Secondly, two years of service, including traveling around the nation to various disaster areas will likely afford young men and women the opportunity to reflect on just what they want to do with the rest of their lives. Trade schools have essentially been transferred to the military, and I see no reason why service members could not begin training in various occupations. Thirdly, a certain number of service members are going to find they love the military, and they will go on to form the professional army. Recruiting offices can pretty much close their doors.
And none of it rests on gender or the idea that women are special. If women choose to cling to the belief that they must be protected by men, they are free to do so. But they will not vote. If men are not interested in military service, for whatever reason, they will not be forced into the military on the basis of their gender, as the draft currently demands. They, too, can refuse service. They too, will not vote. At 18 years of age, every citizen in the United States will have to make a choice: do they want to help decide the fate of their nation? If so, they are required to make a sacrifice. They can change their mind at any time, but failure to complete a commitment to protect the country means having no voice in how that country is led.
In essence, it’s not just women who won’t be permitted to vote, although I strongly suspect women will make up the bulk of the disenfranchised. I would bet money the 80-20 rule will come into play. 80% of men and 20% of women will take the service. 80% of men and 20% of women will form the voting block that determines the future of the nation. I suspect that the 80% of women and 20% of men who refuse the service and surrender their votes are precisely the idiots who have voted us into our current mess.
This looks like a win-win, to me.
Both men and women can choose to be special. In making that choice, they will accept they are not equal.
Only equals get to vote.
Works for me.
Lots of love,