No Vote for Me

As a lead-in to talking about how unionized white men vote very differently from non-union white men, Andy Stern made a joke about how maybe as reparations for not letting women vote for the first 100+ years of the country's existence, perhaps men shouldn't be allowed to vote for a hundred years or so. I had a girlfriend years ago who used to say that, too, and I kind of think it makes sense. Once, I went to see Susan Moller Okin speak (on her multiculturalism is bad for women thing) and wanted to ask her about this, but couldn't get myself called on.

Comments

No one is forcing you to vote.

Posted by Chris | August 3, 2007 1:37 PM

Re: I had a girlfriend years ago who used to say that, too, and I kind of think it makes sense.

How so? How many women are currently alive who were denied the right to vote? They'd have to be pushing 110 by now! And how many men are still alive who denied them that right? Come on, this is a classic case of letting the dead bury the dead.

Posted by Jonf | August 3, 2007 1:39 PM

"I had a girlfriend years ago who used to say that, too, and I kind of think it makes sense."

Really? I think it is a bon mot, but nothing more than that.

Posted by David | August 3, 2007 1:45 PM

If the women who were denied the vote are dead, does this mean we have to pay the reparations to their descendents? I look forward to the comical spectacle of everybody paying reparations to everybody.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 3, 2007 1:46 PM

Yeah, and maybe we can have the whites be enslaved by the blacks for a while, and let the Native Americans infect them with smallpox. It only makes sense.

Posted by KCinDC | August 3, 2007 1:48 PM

Since Matt lives in the District, it's not like he'd be giving up anything important.

Posted by William Burns | August 3, 2007 1:49 PM

Just to be clearer on what amused me above, one of the interesting things about women is that their descendents are no more likely to be women than men. This throws some weird kinks into the usual reparations framework where you give money to the descendents of those who experienced an injustice.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 3, 2007 1:52 PM

Matt: Aww, you're so cute & sensitive aww. Now STFU.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 1:53 PM

Yes as a white male it is important for me not to question any of my inherent benefits due to the system.

Posted by Rob | August 3, 2007 1:54 PM

Neil, that's the dullest possible ending for s sentence starting with, "one of the interesting things about women is that" . . .

Posted by arthur | August 3, 2007 2:01 PM

The real question, it seems to me, is what in gawd's name MY could have said or done to his girlfriend that necessitated this. Or not said or done: maybe a missed important day.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 3, 2007 2:03 PM

Matt, don't go down the "Must Love Dogs" road like John Cusack threatened to do there for a while; stop pandering to reactionary faux-minist Oprah set tissue-box mafia. Start advocate for teen voting instead. It's wicked rad! And maybe we could cross-promo it with TRL or whatever the sniveling punx watch nowadays in between video games and trips to Hot Topic.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:05 PM

Actually, as Rob's comment implies, this makes more sense then other kinds of reparations.

The point here wouldn't be repaying past injustices, it would be undoing the unfair systemic advantages men accrued during their long period of exclusive voting rights. Those privileges continue to operate today, as evidenced by the demographic composition of, well, any government body in the nation.

Posted by Justin | August 3, 2007 2:07 PM

Also, it's very strange that Matt's audience is so much more (unconsciously?) misogynist than he is.

The whole "feminist posts are clearly craven attempts to impress girls/get sex" is both bigoted and pretty unoriginal.

Posted by Justin | August 3, 2007 2:11 PM

Once, I went to see Susan Moller Okin speak (on her multiculturalism is bad for women thing) and wanted to ask her about this, but couldn't get myself called on.

Because she refused to call on any men?

Posted by peep | August 3, 2007 2:12 PM

Hey Justin- suck my dick.

This is a feminist post like Must Love Dogs is a feminist movie.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:14 PM

We need more informed voters of all genders (note I didn't say both! Fuck Binary Gender!), not to make some silly faux-minist point. Why am I wasting so much energy on Matt's second stupidest post of the year? Must be my time of the month!

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:17 PM

Here is a thoughtful article by a woman that I believe is actually "feminist" in that it seeks to combat a societal phenomenon that results in the mistreatment of women: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/index1.html

That is feminism, not patronizing gestures and voluntary self-castrations like Matt's cloying post here. Faux-minism is a waste of everyone's time, and only seeks to reinforce all the emotional and frilly stereotypes about women that men employ to try to dismiss the "fairer sex" offhand. Must hate dogs, bitch! Resist Cusackification! Just say NOprah!

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:22 PM

Gregorio: "Suck my dick."

Well, that's a very well-reasoned argument you've got there, but I'm going to have to decline anyway. . . aren't you supposed to be funny, though?

Also, no one has said we should up and implement this idea tomorrow. We've simply said it makes a certain amount of sense, pragmatic considerations aside. And while this post may not qualify as feminist (or feminist-ally, if you prefer), you know perfectly well that half the regulars here jump all over anything about women's issues with accusations of pandering.

Posted by Justin | August 3, 2007 2:22 PM

I would hereby don the mantle of "Steve Sailer of Women's Issues," but SS probably has something idiotic say about this, too!

All in all, I overreacted here and am sorry. I am just too impulsive and emotional sometimes. I just want to go home and draw a hot bubble bath and listen to some Carly Simon.

PS: Only transgendered people should be allowed to vote, like it is here in San Francisco.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:25 PM

We need more informed voters of all genders - Gregorio

Bingo!

When the subject of campaign finance reform comes up, I'd give my eye teeth if one of the "serious thinkers" talking about the subject actually considers that money would be less of a corrupting influence in politics if it weren't so dang expensive to win an election!

Thanks to the internet, etc., sufficiently motivated voters can become quite informed about issues and where the candidates stand on those issues without the candidates having to spend much money getting that information out. So if voters would simply pay attention and not let themselves get swayed by expensive attack ads, it would break the influence of money in politics.

As per usual, Walt Kelley was correct: "we have met the enemy and he is us".

Posted by DAS | August 3, 2007 2:26 PM

it makes a certain amount of sense, pragmatic considerations aside.

Actually I'd go the other way -- it makes no ethical sense at all, but *pragmatically* it's awesome. I would totally go for it on the near-certain bet that more good things than bad, public policy-wise, would come of it.

One step backward for the principle of equality, one giant leap forward for every other part of the progressive agenda!

Posted by Ryan | August 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Gregorio:

I didn't mean for my comment to be taken as a personal attack on you, in any case. Just a phenomenon that seems to happen fairly regularly here.

I certainly agree that more informed voters of all genders is really the only way to move forward.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:37 PM

@ Suffragette City: Do we really want another Warren G. Harding?

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:38 PM

Wow, now Im talking to myelf? WTF!?? My pretty little head is all perplexed and bazzled. I got the vapors!

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:39 PM

"Kind of think it makes sense" != "It's a good idea, and I'd support it coming to pass."

Is it me, or has the easygoing humor quotient gone down in the comments over the last week?

Posted by Quarterican | August 3, 2007 2:41 PM

HeiGou!

Posted by Capt. James T. Kirk | August 3, 2007 2:45 PM

I was looking at some census voting data and interestingly, it looks like married women vote at a higher rate than married men, whereas single women vote at a lower rate than single men.

At the same time, married women are generally more conservative than single women and are also more likely to vote in concert with their spouses.

Seems to me that if single women just stepped up and voted at the same rate as either their married or male counterparts the country would look a lot different today. Neither 2000 nor 2004 would have turned out the same way.

Point being, why the obsession with the shrinking white male voting block when there are so many other factors out there affecting elections.

Posted by Kent | August 3, 2007 2:45 PM

Gregorio:

My post really wasn't aimed at you specifically anyway, just a phenomenon that seems to happen a lot here.

You're certainly right about the need for informed voters; that's the only practical way to move forward.

Posted by Justin | August 3, 2007 2:49 PM

Sorry for the locker room humor; I just really need a good BJ. I look like a younger, mustachioed John Cusack.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:55 PM

Justin, stop godwinning the threats with cries of misogyny. I don't think you have any evidence for any misogyny.

I see people disagreeing with Matt.

Saying this is his attempt to get laid more often is not bigoted, it is not misogyny, it is mockery.

Why is Feminism falling out of favor amongst young women? It's because of the godwinning. The if you aren't for us yer agin us.

Personally, I don't think Matt is getting enough -- he has way too much time on his hands for stupid posts like this one.

Anyway, Matt, the Progressive Orgy starts at 8pm this evening in room 404. I understand Hindraker will be tonights bipartisan guest of honor.

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 3:04 PM

but couldn't get myself called on.

As reparations for decades of male students' being called on disproportionately.

Posted by Anderson | August 3, 2007 3:05 PM

"...I kind of think it makes sense."

I don't think it makes sense at all, but it would give the people I usually vote for a much better chance of getting elected. At least that would be true if it were implemented as a big surprise on election day. If it were the norm, I think we'd find far different people on the ballot. Maybe I'd like them, maybe I wouldn't.

Regardless, I find the thought of being denied the vote dehumanizing. I suppose it does one good to consider the possibility of being dehumanized every once in a while, but it isn't good for it to happen. As an educated, middle-class white male, it doesn't come up very often for me.

Posted by Njorl | August 3, 2007 3:06 PM

Hey Matt, ask Sarah if the fact that women make more than men now means there really isn't a girl crisis, and just may be a boy crisis.

Ask Sarah if she can envision a world without racism and what that would look like. Then ask her if she can envision a world without sexism and what that would look like. Finally, ask her to postulate what measurable criteria would need to exist before feminists could start dismantling their organizations.

Big-City Gals Earn More Than Guys
The Skinny: Young Women In New York, LA, Dallas Surge Past Men In Wages

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/03/the_skinny/main3130645.shtml

You've come a long way, baby.

The New York Times reports that young women in the biggest U.S. cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to recent census data.

In New York, women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 working full time made 117 percent of men's wages. The gals made 120 percent in Dallas, and do more modestly better than guys in Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and a few other big cities. But nationwide, young women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men.

The reasons are a little mysterious, but they seem to have something to do with the fact that women are, apparently, smarter. That is to say, in 2005, 53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men that age.

"I would, of course, like to think that it means that women know what they want sooner than men," one young lawyer tells the Times. "But it probably has more to do with the unfortunate fact that women need to keep in mind biological time constraints and feel a great deal of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and children."

The Times suggests the shift will make it harder for big-city gals to find Mr. Right, at least "if they mean they'll only settle for someone with an education akin to their own," according to one professor.

But the article doesn't address a more pressing question: Does this mean we're going to have to start picking up that first-date check?

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 3:10 PM

But if you count DC you have to factor out the Madams cos that shit's illegal, yo!

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 3:12 PM

39 jobs where women make more than men
Men often are the bigger breadwinners ... but sometimes the women win out.
February 28, 2006: 11:57 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Warren Farrell, the San Diego-based author of "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap – and What Women Can Do About It," has identified more than 80 occupations in which women earn more than men on average.

In the 39 jobs listed below, women's median earnings exceeded men's by at least 5 percent and in some cases by as much as 43 percent. To see why, click here.

Field Women's Men's How much more
women make
Sales engineers $89,908 $62,660 43%
Statisticians $49,140 $36,296 35%
Legislators $43,316 $32,656 33%
Other transportation workers $43,160 $33,124 30%
Automotive service technicians and mechanics $40,664 $31,460 29%
Speech-language pathologists $45,136 $35,048 29%
Library assistants, clerical $23,608 $18,512 28%
Motion picture projectionists $35,412 $27,924 27%
Helpers, construction trades $26,936 $21,736 24%
Funeral services workers $30,108 $24,492 23%
Motor vehicle operators, all other $22,412 $18,252 23%
Baggage porters, bellhops and concierges $26,468 $21,684 22%
Biological technicians $32,292 $26,364 22%
Telephone operators $22,152 $18,356 21%
Food batchmakers $27,872 $23,400 19%
Rolling machine setters, operators, and tenders, metal and plastic $29,692 $25,064 18%
Financial analysts $69,004 $58,604 18%
Personal care and service workers, all other $19,864 $17,160 16%
Meter readers, utilities $36,348 $31,668 15%
Tool and die makers $46,228 $40,144 15%
Library technicians $33,384 $29,328 14%
Crossing guards $18,824 $16,640 13%
Information and record clerks, all other $29,484 $26,312 12%
Telecommunications line installers and repairers $40,716 $36,348 12%
Aerospace engineers $78,416 $70,356 11%
Radiation therapists $59,124 $53,300 11%
Automotive body and related repairers $30,888 $28,132 10%
Other education, training and library workers $46,176 $42,120 10%
Human resources assistants, except payroll and timekeeping $30,420 $28,028 9%
Precision instrument and equipment repairers $40,612 $37,648 8%
Gaming services workers $24,076 $22,308 8%
Engineering managers $82,784 $76,752 8%
Agricultural and food scientists $41,704 $39,156 7%
Aircraft structure, surfaces, rigging and systems assemblers $28,652 $26,676 7%
Residential advisers $24,492 $23,036 6%
Supervisors, protective service workers, all other $34,684 $32,656 6%
Surveying and mapping technicians $34,840 $32,864 6%
Lifeguards and other protective service workers $19,188 $18,356 5%
Advertising and promotions managers $42,068 $40,144 5%
Source: Warren Farrell, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It"
*Data based on 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics usual weekly median earning

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 3:12 PM

Well, I think it's fairly obvious that the appeal of this idea is not that it would actually make sense as some form of justice for formerly disenfranchised women, but that it would, assuming that women continue to (approximately) support policies that they currently do, result in the election of representatives that is more likely to implement a substantive agenda that Matt would approve of than the current electorate of mixed men and women.

Of course, it wouldn't be a substantive agenda as close to Matt's preferences as if we simply made him dictator-for-life, but that's a rather unsubtle approach.

I'm sorry if I'm saying something too obvious here.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 3, 2007 3:13 PM

Julian's a girl's name.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 3:15 PM

If you move the "n" from my first name to my last name, it works quite well: Julia Nelson would be a good girl's name. In fact, a Google search reveals a number of women and girls with precisely that name. One of them, apropos this thread, was a 19th-20th century teach and suffragist from Minnesota.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 3, 2007 3:25 PM

Field Women's Men's How much more
women make
Sales engineers

What's a "sales engineer"?

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 3:35 PM

They're the people that actually know what it is that the sales rep is lying about.

Many products and services, especially those purchased by large companies and institutions, are highly complex. Sales engineers—who also may be called manufacturers’ agents, sales representatives, or technical sales support workers—work with the production, engineering, or research and development departments of their companies, or with independent sales firms, to determine how products and services could be designed or modified to suit customers’ needs. They also may advise customers on how best to use the products or services provided.

Selling, of course, is an important part of the job. Sales engineers use their technical skills to demonstrate to potential customers how and why the products or services they are selling would suit the customer better than competitors’ products. Often, there may not be a directly competitive product. In these cases, the job of the sales engineer is to demonstrate to the customer the usefulness of the product or service—for example, how much money new production machinery would save.

Most sales engineers have a bachelor’s degree in engineering, and many have previous work experience in an engineering specialty. Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and mathematics to technical problems. Their work is the link between scientific discoveries and commercial applications. Many sales engineers specialize in an area related to an engineering specialty. For example, sales engineers selling chemical products may have chemical engineering backgrounds, while those selling business software or information systems may have degrees in computer engineering. Information on engineers, including 17 engineering specialties, appears elsewhere in the Handbook.

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 3:39 PM

@ Julia Nelson: Best. Retort.... Today.

;hi5;

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 3:40 PM

"Of course, it wouldn't be a substantive agenda as close to Matt's preferences as if we simply made him dictator-for-life, but that's a rather unsubtle approach."

I don't know about that.

I know if I were appointed dictator for life I would implement policies that I currently think are very, very bad.

Posted by Njorl | August 3, 2007 4:10 PM

You know, the thing is, it probably wouldn't work. It would be more effective to establish a temporary law, say, for 20 years, that says that only women can run for public office. The problem with just giving the women the vote is that they'd still vote men into office 90 percent of the time. I was struck by reading how Laura Bush enjoyed more popularity than Theresa Heinz Kerry among women in 2004. There is still a pervasive sense among women in this country that there is a particular role they are meant to play, and that role practically excludes a person from effective politics. While Laura Bush enjoys far more credibility than her husband in America today, no one would consider her a serious contender for a major political post. It's the same tide of stupidity that Hillary Clinton has had to wade through-she gets incredible criticism for being what amounts to a good politician. No one ever accused her husband of being "calculating," as if there was something fishy about it, because it's okay for men to be effective politicians. Women are supposed to be caring, loving, cookie baking grandma types, and the hackles of the majority of women in this country are raised when these expectations are not thoroughly met. At any rate, I question the notion that gender equality might one day be achieved in this country merely be depriving men of the vote. It seems more likely that the only way to go about this business is to thoroughly alter the mechanisms through which human reproduction is achieved. Until that happens, I think women are always going to be a little screwed.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 4:13 PM

People attacked Bill and still do for his triangulation, which is pretty similar to attacking him for being calculating.

If Matt, et. al., wants more women in office he should support Instant Runoff Voting rather than than proposing to disenfranchise men.

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 4:22 PM

The point here wouldn't be repaying past injustices, it would be undoing the unfair systemic advantages men accrued during their long period of exclusive voting rights.

The traditional solution to this is not to disenfranchise men but to put restrictions on who can run for office. Say, for the next couple decades, only women can serve in Congress. It seems like that would undo most of the system advantages without verging into the "Modest Proposal" territory of disenfranchisement.

Posted by Consumatopia | August 3, 2007 4:22 PM

Pardon me, but I have little use for grandmas. Some guys I know are into that, but I prefer my meat fresh and tender.

~This Comment Sponsored by TacoBell's® new Fourthmeal®: TacoBell®- Open Late So You Can Sate Your Mammoth Midnite Muncheez!~

Posted by Gregorio® | August 3, 2007 4:25 PM

Do you really know any nursing home predators, Mr. Gregario of the sacred trademark? I mean, I've heard of that sort of thing, but I always thought it was an extremely narrowly occupied niche. Perhaps my social circle just isn't expansive enough. Besides, even if you're more into the Jenna Jameson gender model, you know you aren't going to elect her into public office either. And that's enough softballs for one post.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 4:58 PM

If I wanted to fuck plastic I'd buy a pussy pillow. It's just like the real thing but without the Hep C!

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 4:59 PM

I'm waiting for a more convincing fake, myself. When are they finally going to make those robot women they showcased in AI, hrm? I look forward to the day when I can have all of the satisfaction with none of the negotiation. Ah, hell, I'll probably die before I see it.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 3, 2007 5:16 PM

Jude Law infected them all.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 5:28 PM

Why don't we start with disenfranchising property owners, Protestants, and whites before turning our attention to all men.

Posted by reformer | August 3, 2007 7:52 PM

I won't ask what you were hoping for from her that was worth trading the vote away for.

Posted by aleks | August 4, 2007 2:04 AM

zvsilbgot amqekvfr uectza kmdjcrwtv eudnjz iesvqhx kbwufqh

Posted by nvmozawif sgezm | August 11, 2007 4:50 PM