Hegseth Boosts Video of Pastors Saying Women Shouldn't Vote, Advocating Repeal of 19th Amendment

Bradskii · Tuesday at 4:03 AM

Paidiske said:
You haven't been paying attention then, Bradskii. I've seen it openly advocated on these forums.

Maybe I've seen that it's been insinuated at times but part of me has insisted 'No, they can't be serious. It's not possible'. Maybe I've been in denial. But 'in forum veritas' I guess.

Paidiske said:
Chilling, no?

Depressingly so. How do you bring up kids telling the boy that he gets to decide who he wants to run the country but tell the girl she can't have that right? How does a guy tell his wife? This is Taliban level thinking.

Paidiske · Tuesday at 4:17 AM

Bradskii said:
Depressingly so. How do you bring up kids telling the boy that he gets to decide who he wants to run the country but tell the girl she can't have that right? How does a guy tell his wife? This is Taliban level thinking.

It's not about the thinking, imo. It's about emotional reactions. My observation is that people who take refuge in this kind of position are reacting to (perceived) instability, chaos, societal collapse. They think if they can retreat into some imagined ideal of social order and structure (in this case, with obligatory reference to God's perfect design etc), all the things they fear will be held at bay.

It's an illusion, but a compelling one.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 5:12 AM

Paidiske said:
It's not about the thinking, imo. It's about emotional reactions. My observation is that people who take refuge in this kind of position are reacting to (perceived) instability, chaos, societal collapse. They think if they can retreat into some imagined ideal of social order and structure (in this case, with obligatory reference to God's perfect design etc), all the things they fear will be held at bay.

It's an illusion, but a compelling one.

Well, there's two ways you can reach a position. You can be Spock or Kirk. Or, more accurately, you can tend towards one or the other. You can get emotional about a position and then use logic to back it up. Of you can start with some evidence and some indisputable facts, and logic will lead you to a position where you may well become emotionally attached to it.

I'm an emotional type of guy - might be the Celtic genes perhaps. So I understand the emotional attachment one can have to a policy, or a cause. But there has to be some logic to buttress your position. There just has to be. Otherwise there's no scaffolding to support it. Something has to be right or wrong because of X, Y or Z. IF this THEN that.

I can see that there'd be arguments for denying the right to vote for different people - whether I agree with those arguments or not. But there is NO argument possible for denying someone the right just based on gender. None whatsoever. It's not going to lead to more stability. Or less chaos. It won't help stabilise society. Probably just the opposite in each case. It is basic, simple, fundamentalist misogyny.

Where does that originate? Culture.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 5:36 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
Then I am not okay with them voting and potentially sending me to die in war.

It would be your own fault for going.

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 10:22 AM

BCP1928 said:
It would be your own fault for going.

If I elected a person who knowingly would potentially start a war in which I could be drafted, then yes. But because women cannot be drafted, because they are women, they have no skin in the game. Feminists cannot have their cake and eat it too. They want equality, they can have equality. Draft them and send them to the front lines with the men. Otherwise, their opinions as to where and when we go to war and who the commander in chief is, is mute.

Belk · Tuesday at 10:35 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
Name me one feminist arguing in favor of selective service. I will wait. If women want to be treated equally, they need to be treated equally. Therefore, if they want to vote, draft the women and send them to the front lines. Feminists cannot have their cake and eat it too. Furthermore, no more crying and whining that "I am a girl, I cant do this!" Nonsense! Get in the gutter and clean out the sewer like the rest of us and expect no appreciation. Men built this country and continues to do so

Beginning in the 1970s, "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that women cannot have the same rights as men if they do not have the same responsibilities, and that exempting women from conscription perpetuates stereotypes of women as weak and helpless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_and_sexism&ved=2ahUKEwjN0c6yzIWPAxVLEzQIHYQfL_YQFnoECCMQAw&usg=AOvVaw03Yw1kd1pK26s_38wQwVmx

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 10:42 AM

Belk said:
Beginning in the 1970s, "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that women cannot have the same rights as men if they do not have the same responsibilities, and that exempting women from conscription perpetuates stereotypes of women as weak and helpless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_and_sexism&ved=2ahUKEwjN0c6yzIWPAxVLEzQIHYQfL_YQFnoECCMQAw&usg=AOvVaw03Yw1kd1pK26s_38wQwVmx

Uh huh...and since the 1970's how many women have been in a position of power to make the change an didnt follow through? Show me a so called "feminist" who says they want to be forced to sign up for the draft, and I will show you a liar. If WWIII broke out today, those blue haired middle aged white lesbians will be in the kitchen making sandwiches for a man.

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 11:56 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
Uh huh...and since the 1970's how many women have been in a position of power to make the change an didnt follow through?

Maybe if we voted more women into Congress, they'd reach the majority they would need.

Belk · Tuesday at 12:08 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Uh huh...and since the 1970's how many women have been in a position of power to make the change an didnt follow through? Show me a so called "feminist" who says they want to be forced to sign up for the draft, and I will show you a liar. If WWIII broke out today, those blue haired middle aged white lesbians will be in the kitchen making sandwiches for a man.

Show me how many men want to be forced to sign up for the draft? You asked to be shown and you were given data to support their claims to equality. Now you want to whinge about it not getting enacted when they had no power to do so?
I get the sense you just want to complain about those you see as opposed to your world view.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 3:04 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
If I elected a person who knowingly would potentially start a war in which I could be drafted, then yes. But because women cannot be drafted, because they are women, they have no skin in the game. Feminists cannot have their cake and eat it too. They want equality, they can have equality. Draft them and send them to the front lines with the men. Otherwise, their opinions as to where and when we go to war and who the commander in chief is, is mute.

Are you willing to be consistent with your proposition? Do you believe that only those capable of military service should have the vote?

Pommer · Tuesday at 4:30 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Maybe if we voted more women into Congress, they'd reach the majority they would need.

True, maybe having 400 women in the House and, oh, say, 78 in the Senate would settle things down?

Pommer · Tuesday at 4:35 PM

ozso said:
Neither Hegseth nor Wilson say anything about women voting in video footage. And there's no quote in the article from either of them about women voting. Rather someone else said that he and his wife should reach a mutual decision on who to vote for, and as head of the family he should cast the vote. Which is just one guy's way of wanting to do things in his family.

So it seems to me there's some definite straw grasping going on with this. And one man's opinion is somehow supposed to allude that the Trump administration is planning on repealing the 19th amendment.

Having delved into Wilson’s opinions a bit deeper, he’s not actually in favor of disenfranchising women, but going to a system whereby “households” would hold the franchise. The head of the household would deliberate with his family, then vote according to his conscience. Widows would have a vote. Single women would be under their father’s vote, as would wives be under their husband’s. Obviously, men over 18 would still be under “Dad’s” as well, but he never really spelled things out.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 4:39 PM

Pommer said:
Having delved into Wilson’s opinions a bit deeper, he’s not actually in favor of disenfranchising women, but going to a system whereby “households” would hold the franchise. The head of the household would deliberate with his family, then vote according to his conscience. Widows would have a vote. Single women would be under their father’s vote, as would wives be under their husband’s. Obviously, men over 18 would still be under “Dad’s” as well, but he never really spelled things out.

IMO, that's a distinction without much difference. Even if one takes the most charitable interpretations of his intents, the reality of an arrangement like this is that women will still be disenfranchised to at least some degree. Ironically, these guys supposedly wanting to decrease the "atomization" of society are actually putting forward an incentive to not get married.

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 6:02 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Maybe if we voted more women into Congress, they'd reach the majority they would need.

Maybe the men should give them the right to be drafted just like how they gave them the right to vote?

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 6:04 PM

Belk said:
Show me how many men want to be forced to sign up for the draft? You asked to be shown and you were given data to support their claims to equality. Now you want to whinge about it not getting enacted when they had no power to do so?
I get the sense you just want to complain about those you see as opposed to your world view.

Men dont want to be drafted, and neither do women. Therefore, feminists dont want equality, they want entitlement.

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 6:49 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Maybe the men should give them the right to be drafted just like how they gave them the right to vote?

Nobody's stopping them.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 7:06 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Men dont want to be drafted, and neither do women. Therefore, feminists dont want equality, they want entitlement.

This entire draft thing is a canard. Nobody in this country has been drafted in over 50 years and there's not even a whiff of it happening again in the future. If half the country was ready to revolt over a covid vaccine, what would happen if they actually were sent off to die?

This draft nonsense is nothing more than an excuse for you to rail on the same feminists who've fought to get women allowed into a variety of combat and leadership roles - roles that Hegseth has said he doesn't think should be open to women.

So, please, spare us your feigned outrage.

Postvieww · Tuesday at 7:15 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
https://apnews.com/article/women-hegseth-defense-secretary-religion-d962f472910fb47a0c66cd37b01f550d

In the post, Hegseth commented on an almost seven-minute-long report by CNN examining Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC. The report featured a pastor from Wilson’s church advocating the repeal of women’s right to vote from the Constitution, and another pastor saying that in his ideal world, people would vote as households. It also featured a female congregant saying that she submits to her husband.

“All of Christ for All of Life,” Hegseth wrote in his post that accompanied the video.

The post:

https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1953626931234054558

The video is of a CNN piece interviewing Doug Wilson and other pastors from the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, with which Hegseth's church is apparently affiliated. One of the topics they broach is voting and several of them advocate returning to a system where women don't have individual votes, but rather the husband votes for his entire household. One pastor explicitly advocates for the repeal of the 19th amendment.

Was it a problem that Obama’s pastor had radical views?

Belk · Tuesday at 7:27 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Men dont want to be drafted, and neither do women. Therefore, feminists dont want equality, they want entitlement.

They want the same thing so they don't want equality? This is your argument?

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 7:53 PM

Postvieww said:
Was it a problem that Obama’s pastor had radical views?

I'm not familiar with everything that Jeremiah Wright has said, so I won't defend his entire body of work, but I will say that, of the handful of excerpts that caused the kerfuffle in 2008, there was absolutely nothing wrong with them. They weren't even radical. He was condemning the US for its past sin and pointing to their natural consequences, but fragile-egoed Republicans couldn't even stomach that, because apparently America is an entity above reproach and criticizing her is like criticizing God himself.

Even still, Obama condemned those comments. He didn't retweet them the way Hegseth did.

Hegseth Boosts Video of Pastors Saying Women Shouldn't Vote, Advocating Repeal of 19th Amendment

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Clara bonam audax

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Believer

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads