With election day here in the US less than two months away, Andrea Hardie has decided that maybe it would be ok if some women were allowed to vote after all.
Hardie — the oft-suspended antifeminist Twitter activist known online as Janet Bloomfield and/or JudgyBitch — has long been a vocal opponent of women’s suffrage, on the grounds that women tend to vote for politicians who support things she thinks are bad, like economic stimulus packages and other manifestations of “Big Daddy government.”
But she’s been making some concessions on this front. Some months back, evidently taking her inspiration from Starship Troopers, she decided it would be ok for women to vote if they were to join the military — or get themselves elected to public office.
Now she’s decided that maybe it would be ok if women like her were allowed to vote too.
In a post on her terrible blog, she declares that
I have already argued that women should be allowed to earn the right to vote, either by joining the military or by being voted into leadership positions by male voters. I think I will now expand my exemptions to some other women with ‘skin in the game’.
Wives of men and mothers of sons.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Hardie falls into both of those categories, as she has regularly reminded her readers.
But ladies like her are still ladies. Why should we let them vote?
Women who are legally married to a man, who by definition is subject to the draft, have skin the game. They have a right to make leadership decisions that could result in their husband’s death. Needless to say, the right to vote is surrendered upon divorce. It can only be regained by remarriage, to a man.
Huh. Never mind that, in the US and Canada at least, there is no draft, and the chances of a draft being reinstated in the forseeable future can be rounded down to zero percent.
And never mind that all women living in a country have “skin in the game” by virtue of, you know, living in that country.
Let’s just accept her premise for a moment and work out the technicalities. Like, for example: would these women be stripped of the vote once their husbands are no longer of draft age? NOPE!
The ages of the men involved don’t really matter. In the US, the draft currently sits at 18-25 years of age, but in war time, draft ages can and do change. Men up to the age of 45 were drafted in WWII, and all men up to age 65 had to register. Men in Ukraine are currently subject to the draft up to age 50. All societies will prefer to draft men of all ages before they will draft women.
That’s quite an assumption, given that there are a lot more young women serving in the military than there are old men.
The second group is mothers of sons. They, too, have skin in the game. Once a woman has given birth to a son, she earns the right to vote on the grounds that her son can be drafted and she has a right to participate in leadership decisions that could lead to his death. The only circumstance under which this right can be revoked is if she surrenders legal custody of the boy. His adoptive mother, if there is one, earns the vote.
What if … oh never mind, it’s pointless to try to discuss this as if actual logic is involved in anything that Hardie argues.
Or facts, as her next “argument” shows:
The truly sobering thought is that even if women’s suffrage were repealed, I doubt many women would care, beyond the initial shock of ‘Muh rights! Muh rights!’ If the 19th were repealed, I sincerely doubt very many women would take any of the paths listed above for the purpose of gaining the right to vote. Women will do all of the above, but based on their personal feelings and preferences, and not because they are vitally, deeply, profoundly invested in the idea of suffrage.
It’s always seemed to me just a teensy bit strange how invested Hardie is in the whole anti-suffrage thing, because all the (admittedly halfassed) arguments she musters against women voting would seem also to apply equally to women trying to influence politics in ways other than voting. Like, for example, writing blogs and tweeting tweets and putting up videos on YouTube in order to push your political agenda — all of which Hardie herself does, of course.
And even if we accept her bizarre notion that the only women who have “skin in the game” are women in the military, elected officials, wives of men and mothers of boys, wouldn’t this exemption only apply to those women trying to influence politics in the countries in which they live?
Following Hardie’s logic to its conclusion, Canadian women like her shouldn’t have the right to publicly campaign for political candidates in the US. No skin in the game!
But who is this dude staring out from the header on her Facebook page?
He looks vaguely familiar. He doesn’t look very Canadian.
Ah, JudgyBitch. 😛
What about women who can’t have children, for whatever reason? Oh, right. They’re just supposed to stay home and do the dance of shame.
Also, do trans men get voting rights? I’m guessing the MRA answer would be “no” because they don’t consider them real men. And how do non-binary people fit in here?
I think the reason that women in the military or women who have wives or daughters in the military aren’t being considered because MRAs don’t actually care about the lives or welfare of people in the military. They probably think that people who joined voluntarily are asking for it when it comes to service related death, injury, and PTSD because they chose to be there.
They pretend to care about hypothetical drafted men because they know that draft is unlikely to be reinstated anytime soon. Caring about hypothetical draftees means they don’t have actually do any real activism. If they really gave a shit about men who were drafted, you’d see MRAs doing activism surrounding helping homeless Vietnam vets, getting the military to do a better job recognizing and paying out those with agent orange related illness or disability or fundraising for the DAV. You don’t ever see that though. Because this whinging about the draft is their excuse to either argue that women should be denied citizenship rights or women should be immediately drafted and/or killed to make for male combat deaths.
I accidentally clicked on the link to her blog. The strapline is “The radical notion that women are adults.” And the vast majority of us are, but all Andrea Hardie ever seems to do is fling poo. Much adult.
I’m curious. This Hardie character lives in Canada, last I checked. Assuming this half-baked scheme of hers had a chance at all of becoming real, I wonder: in which country would any of it apply? Which country’s politics is she even dreaming of influencing, anyway? Is she perhaps hoping to sway any foreign governments in the process, or just her own? (And if so, why is she just blabbing on the Internet? Shouldn’t she be introducing herself to a few politicians?)
Oh, wait. That’s right. I’m trying to apply logic in a no-logic zone.
What is it about the worst sorts of people that allows them to believe they are the best humanity has to offer?
I know about Dunning-Kuger, but this has added malice. They aren’t just the best and specialest in their opinion. Those “beneath” them should suffer in some way.
Is there a term for this sort of thinking?
No, she doesn’t believe any of this happy horse shit. She just wants to be accepted by the boys.
I’m a woman and a veteran, I separated from the AF when I was 27. I was unmarried until the age of 41.
Under JB’s desired scenario, would I have relinquished my voting rights for the 14 years between my military service and my marriage?
Victorious Parasol – I’m supposed to do a dance? I’m assuming it’s interpretive dance, that seems the correct style to me, anyhow. If I’m wrong, I’ll need some choreography, stat!
You know, she may have a point. If women have no involvement in the military (because no women have ever been in the military ever) then maybe they shouldn’t have a say in military decisions.
Just like (cis)men shouldn’t be able to make decisions about policy affecting abortion or birth control access for women. Because they have no “skin in the game.” Makes sense, thanks JB!
Skin in the game because politicians make decisions that might lead to the death of a (male) family member? I’d suggest that everyone has skin in the game if they or the members of their families eat food or drink water.
Contaminated food, baby formula bulked up with melamine or other non-food material, poisonous wastes that get into groundwater and private wells or public reservoirs. All these things are controlled by legislation and enforced by public servants.
We all have skin in the game all of the time – even if we’re living in a completely peaceful world.
Being a Mean Girl for a sec, but has anyone noticed that for some reason she always seems to look crosseyed, slurring shitfaced drunk when she tries to make her tough face? She seriously looks like she’s about to urp the pea soup on herself.
@WWTH
I don’t know about all unmarried women, but you and Paradoxy should definitely be denied the right to vote.
I feel like pointing out that in Starship Troopers (the book), it wasn’t just military service that made someone a citizen, it was federal service. The recruiter Rico talks to points out that whoever applies gets in; blind, deaf, the service can’t say no, because it is still someone’s vote that is at stake. The act of asking to vote and then doing something for a couple years is all it took. Still kind of an uncool system, but not close to what these fucks want.
Oh yeah, and you had to explicitly sign up! You didn’t get citizenship because of a hypothetical draft that might not happen, you actually had to go through the training and work for it! The system Heinlein described rewarded people for national service, not for being born with a dick! Hardie and her ilk seem to miss that fact.
Hey, Lars! Good to have you back! Just out of curiosity, do you just lurk until I mention my marital status and then jump in or have you been staying away because the other trolls were intimidating to you?
Why? So that we’ll have to marry you instead? No thanks.
?
Did you expand your little schooolboy crush to Paradoxy now too? I’m guess I’m supposed to be jealous and sad that I no longer have you all to myself. It’s alright, snookums. I’ll live.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ffct69wG1rnbepy.gif
I know that the last time we had a mayoral election, it hinged on the probability of each candidate taking Louisville into war against Indiana. Men voted against war while unmarried women were totes pro-war, because fuck Indiana. Unfortunately the men won and we are still at peace with our neighbor.
That’s how elections work, right?
eta:
http://i.imgur.com/HrzvxHD.gif
Or, if she does, she thinks she’ll get some special exemption because she’s been a “good girl” and toed the ideological line.
One, I’m not single, I’m dating Jack, who just posted you the lovely “Ignore” gif. (I don’t know if I was dating Jackie the last time you slid on here on your own slime, but just FYI.)
Two, too late Pookie, I’ve already registered to vote!
Though, I am curious, what’s your reasoning for deciding I shouldn’t be able to vote? Enlighten me.
Lars won’t be back to enlighten shit. Mocking his fixation with me – and apparently now you as well – always drives him away.
Nobody ever willingly volunteers themselves to be opressed do they. “Yeah well I don’t think women should be given the right to vote… except for me.” Jeez
http://pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw9048-215658__UNOPT__safe_fluttershy_animated_image-macro_haters-gonna-hate.gif.gif
Short JB: Ok…I think girls are bad, I think that they shouldn’t vote unless they join the military or straight. Love me…looove meeee!
Yeah, but I still thought I should ask, mostly because I want to know why he thinks that beyond “you’re not married and you don’t agree with me about politics, therefore you shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all”.
So that was supposed to be, like, wit, right ?
Damn I feel sorry for trolls sometimes.
What Lea said. She’s playing to a hateful audience, and the tune they want to hear is a hateful one. This isn’t about logic: logic is only an issue for people who have integrity.
If every single woman in the world performed Nobel-prizewinning feats tomorrow, then the day after that Hardie’s audience would still want her to tell them how women are worthless, and she would still deliver.
It’s just sad.
@ bakunin
She doesn’t strike me as someone who’d be a fan of a book where women in the military are disproportionately represented in the Fleet officer class because women are inherently better at maths.
What is the deal with the MRA obsession with the draft? For Pete’s sake, for USAians at least, you’d have to be about 65 years old for conscription ever to have been an concern for you.
Then again, “We hunted the mammoth for you!!” is exactly the same kind of ridiculous appropriation, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.