|
Against Muller's
thesis
Alexis Boylan
Let's get one thing
straight right now before anyone gets any ideas. Derek Muller
is not against women voting. He does believe that women should
have the right to vote and that women are in fact equal to men.
He also believes that women are fully capable of voting. Now
that we have righted the dreadful rumor that has been spread
throughout campus by angry girls and sensitive guys, lets delve
into Derek's thesis presentation and try to figure out what,
exactly, he was trying to say.
Entitled, "Dividing Their Attention:
A Critique of the American Woman Suffrage Movement," Muller's
thesis addressed the idea that the Judeo-Christian traditions
of family-based voting should be esteemed as more correct than
the progressive radical individualism that sustained the women's
suffrage movement. Muller argued that, according to Christian
tradition, the family is needed to maintain the community and
society and keep it from breaking apart. To sustain the community,
the family as a whole should take on the responsibility of voting.
As the head of the family, such a responsibility fell to the
man/father of each household.
Despite his previous statement, Muller argued
in his thesis that, historically, because the responsibility
of raising a family fell primarily on the woman, it would be
unfair to take away time and energy from the children by giving
women the right to vote. The man, however, had more time to
weigh his understandings of the candidates and responsibly pick
the best choice for their community. The women's suffrage movement
of the early 1900s, argued Muller, broke the family bonds and
disrupted the community, and turned the society from that of
a good Christian community to a fiercely individualistic, modern
and corrupt enterprise.
As a woman who fully enjoys her voting privileges,
I found Muller's argument not only insulting, but also incorrect
and insufficient. Traditionally and historically it was the
Western view that the responsibility of the woman was to raise
the family and take care of the house. I cannot argue against
that. I can say, however, that to argue that the woman is incapable
because she is unable to undertake the responsibility of voting
as well as raise her family is absurd.
Should the lady of the house have no other
interests or hobbies but her home and children? No more romance
novels, let alone any novels at all? Ah, but there's the rub!
Does voting really take up more time than, say, watching a soap
opera? Sitting down to read the newspaper or watch the candidate's
debate takes up more time than reading a 500-page Harlequin
novel.
If I fly with Muller's argument, then are
men really capable of voting responsibility? As breadwinners,
men should be out on the job for at least eight hours a day.
When exactly would they have the time to thoroughly research
the information on the correct or best candidate? How is it
that men have more time to vote responsibly? Also, what happens
if the man of the house is dead, or incapable of making a good
and just choice? If a man is abusive, then is it right that
he should cast the vote for the family? When this question was
addressed, Muller simply stated that the responsibility should
fall on the father. Well, if the father is dead, what then?
Is this scenario just some obscure possibility that would be
rare in a proper Christian community? I think not.
The community is valuable in a society, but
both men and women sustain the community. Women are just as
vital to the society as men-who else would bear the children?
But in all seriousness, women are just as bright and able to
vote as men. The community does not break down if women vote.
What breaks down a community is if there is no cohesion to the
family. If men beat their wives, then the community is disrupted.
A woman who votes does not disrupt the community, but rather
adds to it. Her voice is heard, and she can add her input and
views to the betterment of the society.
Muller said he wishes that society would renew
the Christian conservative view of a family-based community.
The family-based community has never been abolished; it is still
a very real and prevalent thing. For someone who says he advocates
women's suffrage, why does Muller want to revive the traditional-patriarchal-voting
system?
As I look around campus at all the young men that attend Hillsdale
College, I cringe. If the women's suffrage movement hadn't occurred,
and if the responsibility of voting remained the man's duty
for the community, would Jon Gibbons really be voting sporadic
Libertarian-Socialist for me? He would be, and that's a scary,
disturbing thought.
|
Editorial
|
