• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Yes, there is a movement to take away women’s right to vote

12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

YHWH doesn’t seem to have a very good view of women ruling. Voting is the ground floor of ruling.
How would you reconcile your view with His?
No matter how I look at it, I don't see the logical connection between voting and ruling. Do you rule the country simply because you vote? Do I? Clearly not: having a say in who is elected is a form of power/sway, but it does not equate with ruling and therefore does not apply to this verse.

If ONLY women could vote this verse would be relevant to conversation, but thats simply not the case. Voting does not equal ruling.

That is a good passage though, what is the reference?
 
Not all males vote like men.
So if the women were to vote with the males who were being squishes, they would overrule the actual men.
It happens an awful lot.
But not all females vote like women.

Married ones are more likely to vote correctly according to your own criteria.

Why do you blame half of population for issues in your country? By this logic, business owners doing worker exploitation.
 
No matter how I look at it, I don't see the logical connection between voting and ruling. Do you rule the country simply because you vote? Do I?
I flummoxed.

Trump is in power because the voters managed to put him there, this time.
Biden was in power because people who controlled the voting managed to put him there.
Whether it was manipulated votes or actual votes, the rulers don’t rule unless votes put them in.

So who rules at the end of the day?
The people with the most votes, whether by hook or by crook.
In a fair election the majority of voters rule.
 
But not all females vote like women.

Married ones are more likely to vote correctly according to your own criteria.

Why do you blame half of population for issues in your country? By this logic, business owners doing worker exploitation.
Really?
I had no clue.
 
Just going to toss this in here:

Queen Victoria ruled over a British Empire where women were not allowed to vote.
Interesting point. 😀
 
I have to post this.
About two years ago my wife shocked me when she said that she didn't think that women should vote because they vote with their emotions.
I could not believe what I was hearing but I did agree with her.

And now I equally shocked to see women in this thread saying the same thing

Man I have got to get my wife to join here.
 
Would you mind clarifying on how you see me doing this?
Thank you for asking. I suspect that you are guilty of doing what I frequentlt do: communicate in a type of shorthand for simplicity or convenience, leaving much open to misunderstanding.
I guess I did that in my comment or didn't paste in enough of your statement to make myself clear. My initial reaction was this:
Making voting more universal could not inherently remove other elements which are part of the irremediable inequality of people.
I then tried to hint that before we can solve the questions that come with this topic, we would do well to have the blinders removed and see what answers the Creator would give. As our Designer, He knows best what works and why.
While the white-landed-male-as-voter standard may not have been the right answer (I am neither conceding nor arguing that here), it was I believe, established by men who intended to found an enduring entity.
The changes to allowing others to vote did not stem from that but rather from other concerns.
 
But how much of decision were made by her?

Anyway, probably Prime Minister has done most of state running.

No, during HRH Victoria's reign she had much more authority over government than Charles would today. Victoria and her ministers were sometimes at odds and Victoria tended to come out on the winning side of those differences. Victoria and Disraeli were at odds and had Victoria dismissed him then no one would have challenged her right to do so.

The Sovereign in the UK retains theoretical powers but anymore lacks much of the necessary authority to exercise those powers. If Charles were to dismiss a latter day PM the result would likely be the end of the monarchy.
 
No, during HRH Victoria's reign she had much more authority over government than Charles would today. Victoria and her ministers were sometimes at odds and Victoria tended to come out on the winning side of those differences. Victoria and Disraeli were at odds and had Victoria dismissed him then no one would have challenged her right to do so.

The Sovereign in the UK retains theoretical powers but anymore lacks much of the necessary authority to exercise those powers. If Charles were to dismiss a latter day PM the result would likely be the end of the monarchy.
If somebody doesn't make decisions, then it can't be their contribution. I didn't know how much Victoria was involved.
 
If somebody doesn't make decisions, then it can't be their contribution. I didn't know how much Victoria was involved.

I've often posted about the relationship between authority and credibility.

This is especially important with those sad men who whine about how their wife doesn't respect them while having done nothing to warrant such respect.

Queen Victoria, on the other hand, established her credibility from the very outset of her reign. Thus she established her authority.

 
Women aren't voting based on their emotions, they're voting based on their real life experiences. By the way, men do that as well... A person would be stupid to vote against their own self-interests. So if the claim is that voting based on your own circumstances makes you too emotional to vote, then we need to remove men's right to vote as well.

Sure, women vote Democratic more often, but it's most likely because they experience poverty more often. That's why a higher percentage of black women make up for the Democratic vote, they're more likely to experience poverty and other economic issues. Women, in general, are more likely to depend on essential, low paying jobs to survive, jobs that men don't want. Meaning they live in a different reality than men.

Women still pay taxes, they're still held accountable to the same laws of the country as men are. Myself and the women in my life have worked for most of our lives. We've paid taxes, paid into Social security, into Medicare, and paid local taxes. If the government can take our money and prosecute us, the same as a man, then we should have every right to say who we choose to represent us.

By the way, there are millions of women who vote Republican. The discrepancy between women voting Democrat and Republican isn't even a massive amount, it's under 10%. Don't worry, there are still plenty of Christian Republican women out there to "do the leg work" for their men, and if those women choose to give up their vote to their husband, then let them do that, but leave the rest of us alone. Ya'll are advocating for dictatorship at this point.

Besides, being more emotional isn't inherently a weakness to begin with. Women can be highly aware of the people around us, and we constantly put other people's well- being ahead of our own. Women do the majority of everyday work that benefits the people around them. I would trust many women in my life to make decisions for me and for this country.

I'm sorry that some of you think so little, of not only yourselves as women, but so little of the women around you as well.

And, I can't help but laugh at the "women are too emotional," argument, when nearly every response on this thread supporting women losing their right to vote, was ironically, emotional, lol.

I'm not even entirely convinced that women are more emotional than men at this point, especially recently. Red pill men have literally fallen for an entire movement built around other men making money off on them by saying things that they want to hear. If that isn't "emotional," I don't know what is.
 
Back
Top