It’s always refreshing to see Men’s Rights Activists momentarily cease their grousing about the alleged evil and inferiority of women and take up the important issues of our time — like, for example, whether we men should rise up as one and take away women’s right to vote.
Canadian MRA Andrea Hardie — perhaps better known by her pseudonyms “Janet Bloomfield” and “Judgy Bitch” — is leading the way, starting up the #WhyWomenShouldNotVote hashtag on Twitter and following this up with a couple of blog posts arguing that women need to have the vote taken from them.
Why does Hardie think that women (presumably including herself) have collectively forfeited the right to vote? Mostly because they disagree with her.
Hardie starts off her case against women’s suffrage with a familiar MRA argument, declaring that
No draft = no vote.
Women should not vote, because they will never be subject, in any meaningful way, to the draft.
As they used to say on Laugh-In, “very interesting, but stupid.” So how silly is this argument? Let me count the ways:
MRA assertions to the contrary, voting rights for men aren’t tied to the draft.
In the US, (white) men got the vote a long time before the draft began in earnest in World War I. (There was a draft during the civil war, but it only accounted for a very small percentage of soldiers.)
Men did not lose the vote when the draft was abolished in 1973. Nor was the right to vote ever stripped from Amish, Mennonite, or Quaker men who were granted conscientious objector status.
When selective service registration was reinstated in 1980, the draft itself did not return, nor has it during the wars the US has fought since then. Barring an invasion by giant spider monsters from space, the draft isn’t going to return to the US any time soon.
And while failure to register could, in theory, lead to jail time, this law isn’t enforced, and it’s been literally 30 years since anyone has faced charges for not registering.
Not only that, but male-only selective service registration seems destined for the scrapheap of history. With women now being allowed in combat positions in the armed forces, we will almost certainly see registration extended to women — or, perhaps, eliminated entirely for everyone.
Hardie offers two other reasons why women shouldn’t have the vote; both boil down to the fact that women do things with their votes that she doesn’t approve of.
First off, women tend to support a more robust welfare states than men. Well, that’s not exactly how Hardie puts it:
Women will consume government resources until the state collapses. As long as women can vote, they will consume, whilst not producing those resources.
She also blames women for stripping away the defense budget and leaving the US defenseless. Admittedly, this hasn’t actually happened, but Hardie is so sure it will that she has decided that women need to be punished in advance for this terrible hypothetical crime:
Recall that women cannot be drafted. They do not think in terms of military sacrifice, because they will never vote for themselves to be sacrificed. When the money starts to run out, which department do you think women will vote to begin stripping resources from? Which department do they have the least stake in? The least ability to understand?
They will strip money from the Department of Defense. …
Women should not vote, because they will eventually cannibalize the military, leaving us all at the mercy of our enemies.
Hardie is also angry that other women aren’t as racist as she is; indeed, she fears that “European women” will be so welcoming to darker-skinned Islamic invaders that civilization itself will crumble. Again, while this is her underlying argument, this is not exactly how Hardie would phrase things.
We can see the effects of women wanting to be ‘nice’ in Europe. The demographics of modern Europe aredownright terrifying. Ethnic European women refuse to have children, yet turn around and welcome in migrants with birth rates that will inevitably spell the end of ethnic Europeans.
This is what the neo-Nazies like to call “white genocide.”
This simply can’t happen. The European nuclear arsenal cannot fall into the hands of radical Islam. It’s a death sentence for all of us, and one being written by women. As long as women can vote, the great liberal civilizations built by men are going to fall. …
Are we willing to sacrifice our children to rapists while women contemplate whether being ‘nice’ is all it’s cracked up to be?
At this point, it seems like the only thing separating Hardie from the white power gang is that she’s less willing to use ethnic and racial slurs than they are. Oh, and that white supremacists tend to think more highly of women — at least those with white skin, anyway.
Hardie’s grand conclusion:
Women have had the vote in the West for almost 100 years, and all they have done is vote to destroy and destabilize the world men built for us, while protecting themselves from the blood consequences. They have voted selfishly, rapaciously, irrationally and quite possibly, irrevocably.
Women should not vote. That’s not misogyny.
It’s self-defence.
If Hardie sincerely believes all the junk she posts, I hope she draws the obvious conclusion: that as a woman, she herself shouldn’t be allowed to vote. While Canada has not passed a law to this effect, she can certainly remove herself from the voter rolls.
And if women are as inherently damaging to politics as she thinks they are, then perhaps she should not be allowed to post her opinions on the internet either? Again, there is no law mandating that Hardie shut up, but she can voluntarily silence herself, before her perfidious womanhood does more damage to the body politik than it already has.
Ms. Hardie, if you really believe that women are this inherently wrong and evil, the only real option available is to DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.
Ugh. 100 years and civilisation hasn’t broken up yet. Srsly, we gotta step up our game if we want our lady votes to get us some apocalyptic society. I’m longing for some Canadian Fury Road.
On behalf of other Canadians…I’m so sorry for Hardie.
Only conservative reactionary men can protect liberalism!
Huh?
There have been quite a few advances in technology, infrastructure, health care and more in the past 100 years.
Also, fewer people die in war now than anytime in remotely recent history. For all the problems there still are in the world, being human has never been safer or easier.
I can only imagine that
Is going to be used against Dave in a “Who’s the REAL sexist!?” Bid.
Wow, I’ve heard this stupid draft crap from soo many MRA’s..do they actually never, ever check any facts on anything. So many double standards in thinking. They complain about this draft crap which doesn’t exist & then will complain that women aren’t suited to be in combat…so many mental issues….
All this tantrum-throwing about the draft is pretty much the ultimate proof that no MRA has ever read and comprehended any feminist’s opinion on anything ever.
I mean, not that we need proof, but hey.
@Col
http://i.imgur.com/M7DgVn7.gif
Boy, you sure are busy today, huh David?
But I hope that JB takes your very logical opinion to heart. After all, you’re a man, and she’s just a woman.
Uh, Canada doesn’t have a draft, so does that mean no Canadians can vote? FeMRA’s like Hardie really need to get it through their thick skulls that just because they’re inferior life failures doesn’t mean that all women are. She needs to take responsibility for her incompetence and stop blaming it on her gender.
There’s no draft in Canada. No selective service registration. No national service. No gender restricted military job categories (possible exception since subs are single gender) . So what the hell is this relevant to her?
Signed:a woman who’s been in the Canadian military in a role that was previously gender restricted. So I’ll take my vote judgy bitch.
What unutterable twaddle.
Women who vote will throttle the defense budget even though they’ve had the vote for damn near a century and the defense budget is the largest in the world by a large margin.
Women aren’t able to understand defense issues because uh, someone said so?
Even setting aside the ridiculous notion that women should not be subject to the draft and should not be in combat–you know, things feminists have been fighting for.
It doesn’t take actually serving in combat to understand that you need a strong defense. Many penis-enabled Presidents have utilized the military to an appropriate extent without having served themselves.
The only way the downfall of ethnic europeans is a bad thing is if they are somehow better than other ethnicities. If you think that’s true, I would love to see an explanation of precisely how that’s the case while not being remotely racist.
I don’t really like your chances on that one.
And hi. I don’t comment much. But I read this site for my rage needs
I agree with Parodoxical. When will JB pipe down like the properly submissive woman with no rights or voice she claims to want to be?
She should set an example for the rest of us instead of trying to be heard and taken seriously. Doesn’t she know she is merely a woman?
Jk. I know she only writes this crap for the headpats and the thrill she gets when she sics her mooning fanboys on other women. Poor dear. Can’t walk her talk because even she knows she is full of shit.
Oh, jeez. So many problems with that line of thinking.
1. Not all men are qualified for the draft. Does that mean they can’t vote?
2. “But only a small percentage of women are qualified!” Not many, say, black people are qualified to be astrophysicists, presidents, or any other highly important job, but we don’t ban them from getting those jobs even if they haven’t been historically qualified.
3. “Women have been voting for bad things!” In your opinion. And men have voted for “bad things”, too. Does that mean men can’t vote? What percentage of men who vote for “bad things” should wholly disqualify them? 10%? 35%? 65.4%?
4. “Women only think emotionally!” And men don’t? Ever?
5. “We shouldn’t send the baby makers into combat!” Okay, so we should only send in sterile and homosexual people, especially those who don’t plan getting or adopting children ever.
That just about sums it up, but chances are I’ve missed a couple easily refutable points.
There’s no such thing. The only nuclear powers in Europe are the UK and France.
We have an arrangement with NATO whereby our nuclear capability forms part of the NATO arsenal (subject to our veto on whether to use them). Although France is also part of NATO, their nuclear capability is excluded from the NATO arsenal (various complex historical and international law issues behind that).
The idea of a European Defence Force has been mooted but the UK has an opt out (and has made it pretty clear we won’t be opting in) but currently there’s no “European Anything” when it comes to defence.
Even the Canadian MRA’s views are very US-centric.
Baffling.
Andrea Hardie talks about US politics as though she were a US citizen. Here are her quotes about the USA:
Whose Department of Defense is that? It’s the US Department of Defense.
Plus there’s a chart (unattributed, so the author gets no credit and the reader can’t judge the quality of the chart by referring to the original article) about states extending suffrage to women. Canada has provinces and territories, not states.
Mentions of Canada in her article? Zero.
Another article is titled “The existence of Canada as an independent nation is nothing more than a polite fiction.”
Sooo–she’s a US citizen?
As an actual voting US citizen, I take exception to her (implicit) assertion. Has Andrea Hardie’s white-skin privilege made her believe that she is a citizen of the USA because she’d like us to think she is?
It’s one thing to take a scholarly look at the politics of a nation in which you don’t reside. It’s quite another to omit any mention of the fact that you are a citizen of a different nation–particularly when you advocate that half of that first nation’s citizens should not have the vote.
What’s her beef? She reminds me of an antifeminist who used to rant on soc.men that I read on Usenet in 1999. Her name was Jill and she was mad about her husband’s ex-wife getting child support. Or something.
If that’s not misogyny, then, pray tell, Ms. Hardie, what is misogyny?
The “women shouldn’t vote because they’re not drafted” is actually ableist in addition to misogynist, when you think about it. If voting were tied to draftability, would men too disabled for military service get the vote? Or, hell, why would elderly men get to vote, then? They’re not going to get drafted.
OT
Here’s the advice right-wing Nevada state assemblywoman Michele Fiore (you probably never heard of her till this morning, when she and Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, helped to negotiate the surrender–oops!–the “turning themselves in” of the remaining and still no doubt stalwart and defiant Oregon militia) gave to the one remaining woman involved in that occupation, Sandy Anderson, about writing her story:
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/malheur-occupation-ends/?t=070192
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/pat-robertson-women-in-combat-are-masochistic-sexual-deviants-acting-out-fifty-shades-of-grey
“The feminists have gotten to a point where women are going to be drafted and put into combat units,” Robertson remarked.
Well somebody does think women will get drafted.
@ James
Citation needed, Pat Robertson.
Also, most of the violent psychopaths have historically been male. Does that mean men shouldn’t be in the military, because of that higher chance?
I heard somewhere that her husband is some sort of instructor or something at a college (don’t know which college, don’t want to know). My experience of college faculties in this country is that they tend to lean left (hard), and I think we can assume that this woman believes almost everything she says, which is obviously not only anti-left, but viciously so.
Honestly, there’s a part of me that would love to be a fly on the wall at Mr. Judgybitch’s staff Christmas parties. I mean, put her in a room with a bunch of Canadian academic-types and it’s gotta be either fireworks or the most awkwardly repressed social interaction of all time. Either way, kind of fascinating.
My dad voted for Bill Clinton twice and his preferred candidate for this year is Hilary Clinton. He also voted for the dreaded Kenyan atheist Muslim communazi Obama.
I guess white men shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
Well, that was one of the original arguments against US suffragists – that if women could vote, they’d not vote for war.
This ignores the fact that individual citizens don’t vote for war, congress does. At least it’s supposed to – since WW2 most of the time it’s been all the president’s doing.
Okay, so then women would mostly vote for pacifists? History says no. People who are likely to slash military funding? History also says no. Granted it might be in part because most of them have more important (on a personal level) priorities, and partly because it’s hard for candidates to get into the major parties if they don’t give at least lip service to supporting military funding. But the same could be said of men too. Quite a lot of men don’t want war either, yet you don’t see that making much of a dent.
So… even if there were any sort of truth to that, it’s not particularly relevant. And even if it were relevant, why is willingness to go to war considered a virtue?