- This topic has 62 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
With some folks these days, even broaching the topic brings all sorts of catcalls. Yet the question, at least, is a valid one. Should women vote? I ask not as a religious question, but rather as a sociological and political one. What benefit has society reaped by the legislating of women’s suffrage? I sumbit it has caused far more harm than good. Throughout history, the husband and father of the family has made all critical decisions for matters outside of the home, while the wife and mother made the decisions for inside the home. With women taken out of the home in the last century, with this phenomina escalating in more recent decades, have women and families benefited? Most certainly not! Children are missing mothers, divorce has increased tremendously, and all other sorts of social ills have beset families.
What has your point got to do with voting?
Do you think women work outside the house because they vote?
And suffrage has caused all this…how?
Not that I’m disputing your point necessarily. You just need to demonstrate some sort of logical connection.
You are right. Here in EY it’s also a simple issur that we will correct as soon as we can. In Emanuel it already began. In America, I don’t think even the Republicans will do it.
i guess its true: there is no theory too dumb to be defended by somebody out there.
From a political/sociological standpoint, I am not sure why you say it has done more harm than good. If you believe women should have equal rights, then they are equally directly affected by whomever is in power, so why should they not have the chance to vote? But I think that you have a more basic issue here – you don’t think women should have equal rights. So why not just say so, and not confuse us all with the title?
I’m very against women’s suffrage. Aren’t we all suffering enough without it?
By women going out and working it gives them confidence and gratification. In a perfect world, all men would be sweet and awesome guys who would take care, provide, and love their wife and kids. But we don’t live in a perfect world and women all over the world suffer due to the men. I think every woman should have the means to provide for herself just in case she may have to be on her own one day. To rely on a man and be so helpless is actually pretty scary.
Lol Uneeq,
thanks for the chuckle
the question is do women follow politics enough to give educated decisions (this applies to other groups of people as well)
i dont mean to bring in topics from other posts but i think by looking at whats going on with this woman who wrote the book unorthodox that there is something to not forcing a woman to be inside more than is necessary.
you dont have to ban them from everything.
HUH?????? I do not get your point. Legislative change gave women the right to vote a LONG time ago, before they routinely went to work outside the home. As women are (more than) 50% of the population, they deserve the right to vote, just as men do. And given the fact that women are financially supporting their families, often in lieu of their men, they are even MORE deserving of having a say in the politics of our country. Simple as that.
maybe thats in your community where more men than women go out to work but in most of the world the majority have both at this point
husband gets sick of wife and kicks her out.
Queen bee,
why do you think there were less divorces 100 years ago, were less men abusive, or got sick of their wives less and if so why is that?
maybe they feel threatened by their wives and this wouldn’t happen if they didn’t have jobs and took care of the kids instead
as to “getting sick of their wives” I think men only get “sick of their wives” if they are attracted to something else and wouldn’t be if there was no women’s sufferage
Women vote. Get over it. If you have a problem with that, feel free to move to China. (Actually, women can vote there, it just sounds good in context.)
And please explain the correlation between divorce rates and women voting.
the question is do women follow politics enough to give educated decisions (this applies to other groups of people as well) “
The question is – do men?
I personally think that democracy is stupid anyway.
Cinderella,
lol
there is no correlation between voting and divorces (maybe I’m taking suffrage as women’s lib, instead of specifically voting, sorry about that)
I’m addressing QB’s point of women not getting jobs
Oomis,
you’re right, I don’t know if a lot of men follow politics enough to give educated decisions, however I think a higher percentage of men do than women
Well your personal opinion doesn’t matter. Oh wait, it does – because we’re living in a democracy!
Coffee addict, I don’t know what happened 100 years ago in every household, but this is what I think: 100 years ago, women had nowhere to go and no one to turn to. Their husbands took care of them. So if a woman did want to escape where would she go? So she just dealt with it. Now women realize that they CAN leave, that they CAN take care of themselves, that they don’t have to rely on a man or to deal with the mistreatment because they can take care of themselves.
And I know men don’t like to hear this, but lots of men are jerks.
If women get a vote, at least let it be an educated one. Voting while staying at home, and not having any grasp of the issues they’re voting for ? That will really help the country. [Actually, its basically what (almost) all of the men are doing anyways. But there’s democracy for you…]
I fully agree with oomis and cinderella.
Women vote. This is not Iran, and not a ‘halachic’ state – which cannot exist until bias moshiach (and even then I highly doubt there will be much of a democracy at all).
The idea of forbidding women to vote in modern times sounds completely crazy.
Anyway, I would, nevertheless, completely support such a proposal. Women shouldn’t be given the responsibility to vote! Neither should they be given the responsibility to work. One who cannot be trusted to vote in elections, certainly cannot be trusted to work in any company – or even worse, work with children!
Coffee addict, I don’t know what happened 100 years ago in every household, but this is what I think: 100 years ago, women had nowhere to go and no one to turn to. Their husbands took care of them. So if a woman did want to escape where would she go? So she just dealt with it. Now women realize that they CAN leave, that they CAN take care of themselves, that they don’t have to rely on a man or to deal with the mistreatment because they can take care of themselves.
so you’re saying now instead of dealing with their problem’s they’re running away from it?
don’t you think that people not “knowing their purpose” has brought a rise to fights
The Torah calls an Eesha an Eizer Kinegdo, that is their Tachlis
Gatesheader,
you’re confusing me
coffee addict, you’re going off topic. “Sociological and political,” not religious, remember?
Coffee addict, no I don’t think anyone should run away from their problems. I’m referring to a woman escaping a dangerous and unhealthy environment. Women should be able to take care of themselves just in case they were to find themselves in such a situation.
coffee – the last part of my post was (pretty obviously I think) sarcastic… (since obviously it would plunge the frum world into the abyss of poverty)
One Of,
Oh sorry just got caught up (really I’m starting to go off topic with QB’s off topic of working (not just voting)
Queen Bee,
I understand what you are saying, and I understand that you don’t know what happened 100 years ago, however I think there was a lot fewer cases of abuse, (maybe that was the metzius, or maybe they didn’t talk about it, I don’t know, IMHO I think it’s the former)
Gatesheader,
Lol (remember their is still such a thing as Father In Laws)
“If women get a vote, at least let it be an educated one. Voting while staying at home, and not having any grasp of the issues they’re voting for ? That will really help the country.”
It makes no difference whether the vote is an educated one or not. Our votes do not count. All the candidates are idiots and it really doesn’t matter who becomes president. And the electoral college really has the last word.
And our country is hopeless so who cares?
I’m going to go for “sociological and political.” The OP is contending that abuse of rights calls for abolition of said rights. This is not a democratic view. A citizen of a true democratic state has the right to use and abuse his rights as he (or she) pleases. I have no idea how you could argue otherwise (at least as long as you are including “political in the mix).
Besides that, the fact that people abuse a right does not make the right a bad thing. Case in point: divorce. Divorce is not a bad thing. People abuse it and tend to make a mess out of it, which is a bad thing. But it still remains that divorce itself is necessary and should not be abolished.
I agree that Women’s Lib – a distinct movement from first wave feminism/the suffrage movement, by the way – has yielded some less than stellar results. But your solution fails to address a lot of major political and sociological issues.
coffee addict, I actually thought you joking here…
why do you think there were less divorces 100 years ago, were less men abusive, or got sick of their wives less and if so why is that?
maybe they feel threatened by their wives and this wouldn’t happen if they didn’t have jobs and took care of the kids instead
as to “getting sick of their wives” I think men only get “sick of their wives” if they are attracted to something else and wouldn’t be if there was no women’s sufferage
But I guess you weren’t. Men feel threatened by their wives because they work? The only way I could see that panning out is:
a) Freud was really right about everything
b) The man has some issues.
I personally favor b. And IMHO, “getting sick of their wives” would be a manifestation of such issues. (Because no one in their right mind would see that as a healthy reaction, even if the wife were at fault…right?)
Alot of women are jerks.
But I guess you weren’t. Men feel threatened by their wives because they work? The only way I could see that panning out is:
a) Freud was really right about everything
b) The man has some issues.
I personally favor b. And IMHO, “getting sick of their wives” would be a manifestation of such issues. (Because no one in their right mind would see that as a healthy reaction, even if the wife were at fault…right?)
I’m replying to Queen Bee’s assertion that
Now a different scenario: husband gets sick of wife and kicks her out. So the woman is homeless without a job or money and five kids. She has no degree so she can’t get a good job, and if women don’t work how could she get any job? So what happens to her and the kids?
so I used the words “getting sick of their wives” as if that is what you believe, maybe it’s because of women’s lib. Never did I ever think of men getting sick of their wives.
I don’t think normal men do that, and I do think that most men are normal. I also think that QB was using it as an extreme example to try to show that a system where women are completely reliant on men isn’t foolproof. I’m not sure what your point has to do with that (let’s leave Women’s Lib out of it).
“so you’re saying now instead of dealing with their problem’s they’re running away from it?”
No, they could not deal with their problems, because they had no SAY in anything then. Women were chattel, like any other property of their husbands. Men made ALL the decisions, and women were expected to bow to their will. Of course, the men ALSO brought home the kosher meat and potatoes. Were they NOT the breadwinners, the women would have had NO one to take care of them, and where, after all, WOULD they go, even if their husbands WERE abusive? Abuse was virtually NEVER spoken of anywhere. Even to this day, it is underreported and considered shameful if someone speaks out about it.
There were few divorces, because the stigma of divorce was so awful in those years. Women bore abusive, or even merely unhappy and unfulfilling marriages, because the alternative was even more scary to them. they did so because of the “shanda” of being divorced. And what would they do with the children? Who would want to marry them? And even today, don’t people often shy away from a shidduch from a broken home, though it is surely not the child’s fault that the parents didn’t stay married to each other?
Women were so financially, emotionally, physically, and in every way dependent upon their husbands then, that it took great courage to walk away from a bad situation. When women got the right to vote, the right to earn their own living, the right to be paid equally (still working on that one) with men working in the same job, they also got more options. Some may not like this, but I guarantee you, this is not going away any time soon. Women are educated and world-savvy now, and there is no going back to the good ole days, which in some respects weren’t quite as good as we like to think.
I also think that QB was using it as an extreme example to try to show that a system where women are completely reliant on men isn’t foolproof. I’m not sure what your point has to do with that (let’s leave Women’s Lib out of it).
she specifically said she’s a feminist and she believes in women’s lib, did you read her post or just mine?, if you didn’t, (and even if you did) I’ll provide it below with bold for emphasis
I just realized that in essence that would mean that the tannaim and amoraim always sided with the husband which isn’t true
Now a different scenario: husband gets sick of wife and kicks her out. So the woman is homeless without a job or money and five kids. She has no degree so she can’t get a good job, and if women don’t work how could she get any job? So what happens to her and the kids?
By women going out and working it gives them confidence and gratification.
I Just realized something else, women don’t get gratification from housework?, I think they used to (now they want a cleaning lady)
In a perfect world, all men would be sweet and awesome guys who would take care, provide, and love their wife and kids. But we don’t live in a perfect world and women all over the world suffer due to the men. I think every woman should have the means to provide for herself just in case she may have to be on her own one day. To rely on a man and be so helpless is actually pretty scary.
Heh, oomis said it better than me. Thumbs up!
Such nonsense posted here.
According to halacha a woman is allowed to work. Has nothing to do with what kind of husband she has. Even if he is wonderful and she has not interest in leaving him, she is allowed to work outside the home.
According to halacha a woman is allowed to leave her husband. This has nothing to do with women’s lib. She’s allowed to, period! Sure, she shouldn’t if it’s not a good idea, but that doesn’t take away her rights.
And CA, a woman is a ezer kenegdo, but she has a right to be ezer to the husband she wants to be one to.
Women’s right to vote has time and again been proven to be better for society. Although it was not a guaranteed Constitutional right until 1920, individual states were allowing women to vote as early as the 1860’s. Utah, Wyoming, and Montana were among the first, and the logic behind it was that if women voted, they would vote for candidates and laws to strengthen morality (this was the Wild West, remember). Indeed, the states that allowed women to vote were the ones that passed laws against pritzus, gambling, public drunkenness and various other morality-related laws. Historically, it is women who care enough about what their children were exposed to to get out and do something about it- this is true in both the Jewish and secular worlds. So women’s suffrage is a positive thing. And what does it have to do with women working? The women voting in Wyoming in the 1870s weren’t going out to work, and conversely, plenty of women have worked through the ages to help support their families, even before being granted the right to vote. One has nothing to do with the other. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to live on one income anyway, you generally need both parents working.
comp77: Where do you produce these halachos? A wife is not permitted to just leave her husband for no good (halachic) reason. Otherwise she becomes a moredes. Oh, and S’A says a women shouldn’t go out of the home too frequently.
Computer,
Where did I state otherwise?,
Dvorak,
As I’ve stated before I’m just commenting on queen bees post (I know it has nothing to do with voting)
Doswin: It is enough that she doesn’t want to live anymore with her husband. The only thing that can happen if she doesn’t have good enough reason is she doesn’t get her kesubah.
Women go out today whenever they need to. To the doctor, the grocery or anyplace they feel is necessary. If she is allowed to go out when necessary, then she can go to work even if it’s only because she wants to.
Coffee Addict: you implied otherwise.
Just a thought: the only other poster to keep on insisting that women can’t leave their house more than the minimum, can’t initiate leaving her husband, etc. was Joseph on his various aliases. No one else ever kept repeating and repeating these points.
cantgetit -“With women taken out of the home in the last century, with this phenomina escalating in more recent decades, have women and families benefited? Most certainly not! Children are missing mothers, divorce has increased tremendously, and all other sorts of social ills have beset families.”
What in the world does this have to do with voting? Women’s lib maybe, but not voting.
snjn -“Just a thought: the only other poster to keep on insisting that women can’t leave their house more than the minimum, can’t initiate leaving her husband, etc. was Joseph on his various aliases. No one else ever kept repeating and repeating these points.”
Anyone can repeat it because it’s Halacha, whether you like it or not.
The biggest problem with women’s lib is not that they work out of the home or vote, it’s this attitude of what women’s role in life or society is. It was always the purpose of women to be part of family life, now women are looked down upon if they take this role. Career is the main objective. I’m surprised that some career women still want to get married. Whether Goy or Yid this is the purpose of women. Anybody who thinks differently wasn’t raised with proper Hashkofos.
This to me is rebeling against G-d.
Because of this new attitude -I’m not the least bit surprised that there are women whom only want to marry other women.
In order for society to get so mixed up -it had to be based on something. And the something is role reversal -not by women getting jobs, but by – this is the most important thing in life for them to do!
I ask not as a religious question, but rather as a sociological and political one.
I’m going to force you to stay on topic.
OneOfMany -“I’m going to force you to stay on topic.”
Many topics here in the CR go off on tangents. You can request -you can’t force anything or anyone!
coffee addict, she said she’s a feminist. She didn’t mention Women’s Lib. The two terms are NOT synonymous. In the words of my history professor: “You believe in equal pay? Good. You’re a feminist.” The movement has been polluted with all the Women’s Lib and girl power baloney to the point that “feminist” is a dirty word. Which was very dumb of them. But nothing that QB wrote identifies with that faction, so I’m assuming that she’s one of the good guys.
I don’t disagree with the overall gist of your post (except the point about housework – and I still have no idea what your first post was on about), but I think you are arguing from a completely different angle that doesn’t actually address the point at hand. (I guess the OP sort of lends itself to that, though.) The point is, does abuse of rights mean that the rights are undeserved? From a democratic perspective, the answer is no.
It depends on the needs and desires of the generation (Heemek Devar Devarim 17:14). Thus Rav Kuk and Rav Uziel, who lived during a time when views on this were changing, disagreed as to whether women should have the right to vote and hold office. Rav Kuk felt that it was immodest and would harm shelom bayit. On the other hand, Rav Uziel did not see any immodesty in putting a ballot in a ballot box or discussng public business. He also pointed out that the same shelom bayit argument could be used to deny the vote to sons who are supported by their fathers. Denying women the right to vote could also lead to resentment (see Haggiga 16b that women were allowed to do semicha on korbanot to please them and Rosh HaShana 33a Tosofot d”h ha Rabbi Yehuda ha Rabbi Yossi that according to Rabbenu Tam women were also allowed to make berachot on mitzvot asseh shehazeman grama for this reason).
See also Gittin 88b Tosofot d”h velo lifnei hediotot and Baba Kama 15a Tosofot d”h asher tasim regarding Devora. See also Rav Shaul Yisraeli Amud HaYemini 12:5 that an official position in a democracy is not called a sarrara as the incumbent does not hold the job for life and does not pass it on to his son.
comp77: Under halacha, a wife cannot simply demand a divorce without a halachic basis and justification just because she wants one. If she has no standing and grounds under halacha to demand one, the husband can halachicly refuse to give her a get and she has no recourse as he is halachicly correct. He can technically petition beis din to demand she return to his home. (There is a halachic status called “moredes”. Optionally, he can get her. If he does, she loses her kesuba.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.