• 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

HomesteadWife said:
Feministvampiequeen was the one who stated that women vote for their own personal best interest
Click to expand...
No, he has it right. You're the one suggesting that women can't make any decisions in their own best interest that would benefit those around them. He's asking why when a woman votes in her own self-interest, it can't also benefit those around them. You're the one who said that women vote in their own interest to the detriment of their children.
 
MemeFan said:
Is that because women are ....defective?
Click to expand...
No, women are created differently. God did not institute a biblical structure that involved women in it when he was setting up government structure for his people in time of judges. He was the ultimate authority. No women were involved in priesthood.(And don't go throwing Deborah out there because she is not a typical judge. She did not operate under same standards as the male judges. This is proven by the text.)
MemeFan said:
Or maybe government will run to save women from their short term thinking? If you don't feel "consequences of future", voting short term makes sense.

And all this assume women are voting short term.
Click to expand...
MemeFan said:
Maybe real issue is political system. Hans Herman Hoppe is right that monarchy is better than democracy because monarch hopes to leave kingdom to children, so his interest isn't to economically destry kingdom. Meanwhile president/premier is only for few years, therefore asses stripping of whole country makes sense.
Click to expand...
Political system is definitely an aspect of it. But the country operated at a much different level prior to women voting. Short term voting, which women have contributed extensively too, has brought our country into the decline it is in.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
No, he has it right. You're the one suggesting that women can't make any decisions in their own best interest that would benefit those around them. He's asking why when a woman votes in her own self-interest, it can't also benefit those around them. You're the one who said that women vote in their own interest to the detriment of their children.
Click to expand...
I did add the caveat that it does tend to be for the detriment of their children. The state of the world which our children will inherit is exponentially worse overall then prior to when women received the right to vote.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
That means low income married couples with multiple children will get larger payouts than a single mother would.
Click to expand...
Why would you assume that a two parent household has the same income as a one parent household?
 
HomesteadWife said:
I did add the caveat that it does tend to be for the detriment of their children. The state of the world which our children will inherit is exponentially worse overall then prior to when women received the right to vote.
Click to expand...
Ok, got it. After reading your arguments and logic on this thread, you've now successfully convinced me that women shouldn't vote.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
I believe that you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm misunderstanding your question?
Click to expand...
You were making the point that a larger family, with a man home, gets more assistance than with one less person.
Assistance depends upon income. If there are two adults, the income should be higher.

Unless you are talking about immigrants, they kill it on getting assistance.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
First, it was that single women are lazy and expect "handouts to the detriment of their children," and that men are the ones willing to accept more work. When I pointed out that the majority of women who receive government assistance actually work full time, you claimed that women are using the government to replace their husbands, then I showed you that households with husbands actually accept more total funding than women without. I then offered a solution to get women off of government assistance, which is paying them more and now you're suggesting that if we pay them more the cost of living is going to go up.
Click to expand...
I've already made my countere points to these in prior posts.
FeministVampireQueen said:
I've heard that nonsense since I was teenager, making $5.15 an hour, the same pay that my own father made as well, except that his rent was $200 a month and he was able to purchase an acre of land for a few thousand dollars. When I was making the same pay at $5.15, my rent was $650 per month, and the same land he purchased for 3k or less would have cost me $30,000 at that time. There was no minimum wage increase to cause that. Even years later, the minimum wage was raised to $7.25 where it has remained the same for 17 years, yet the cost of living has increased by 55%.

Sometimes I have to ask myself if people actually live in the real world.

Another example, we live in two red states, we've looked into moving to blue states with higher pay and better healthcare options. I have extensively compared the cost of everyday living between the red states with low minimum wage to the blue states with higher minimum wage. The grocery prices are nearly identical, gas prices in the blue states are between $0.30 to $1 more per gallon (depending on the area), the rent in the blue states is easier to find and lower overall, the land acreage is cheaper in many areas as well. The only significant cost that is higher in those states, comes from purchasing a home and having a mortgage. Which could be countered by the higher pay those states have to offer or by simply purchasing acreage instead. On top of that, the blue states have better access to healthcare and more healthcare options.
Click to expand...
The political and economic system is set up in such a way that just raising minimum wage is not enough to cause the change you want it to. Other policies and factors need to be changed as well.

There are other laws and freedoms that red states have that factor in to people choosing to live there outside of healthcare.
 
steve said:
You were making the point that a larger family, with a man home, gets more assistance than with one less person.
Assistance depends upon income. If there are two adults, the income should be higher.
Click to expand...
Yes but the government raises the income threshold based on the amount of people you have in the family.
HomesteadWife said:
that just raising minimum wage is not enough to cause the change you want it to.
Click to expand...
It would certainly help, which is proven by the fact that people in lower minimum wage states are on government assistance more.
HomesteadWife said:
There are other laws and freedoms that red states have that factor in to people choosing to live there outside of healthcare
Click to expand...
That wasn't the purpose of my argument at all, though. I was specifically countering your claim that minimum wage causes cost of living to increase. I was just pointing out healthcare benefits as a bonus to those states. Actually, the blue states pay more federal taxes then they take out. Since you mentioned "freedoms" in the red states, lower taxes is one of those, the problem is those states are the ones receiving more government assistance while paying less into the system. Because, like I stated earlier, the minimum wage is far too low, they can't afford to keep up with the cost of living.
steve said:
Unless you are talking about immigrants, they kill it on getting assistance
Click to expand...
This is something i've heard often but doesn't seem to be true, according to what i've seen. Can you show me where you're getting that from? I'm genuinely curious, I may be wrong. I'm fairly sure that immigrants need to have certain statuses to qualify for government assistance, like green card status, or victims of human trafficking, seeking refuge/asylum etc.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
Being the person to physically file the legal paperwork does not mean you were the one who walked away from the marriage first. Think about it for a second, how many men abandon their families physically and financially without ever filing the legal paperwork first. They have no reason to file the paperwork to begin with, because filing the paperwork is going to force them to pay support for the children they abandoned.
Click to expand...
What happens in story in this post minus children:

Meat - Limits of Christian rules

Yes it would appear that you are blind and lazy or just a bit stupid. Why don’t YOU google “obvious historic benefits of a Christian society” The phrase that comes to mind for you is “ There is none so blind as he who will not see” Perhaps you are not as clever as you think you are. From my...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
 
MemeFan said:
What happens in story in this post minus children:

Meat - Limits of Christian rules

Yes it would appear that you are blind and lazy or just a bit stupid. Why don’t YOU google “obvious historic benefits of a Christian society” The phrase that comes to mind for you is “ There is none so blind as he who will not see” Perhaps you are not as clever as you think you are. From my...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think that real life situations don't register to some of the people here, lol
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
You keep speaking about these biblical orders and roles, like it's some general mandate that all men are positioned above all women in everyday society. Nearly every verse referencing headship and submission in that regard is confined to the covenant of marriage, and even if you look at that order within the marriage covenant, the way that order is practiced is ultimately subject to the husband, not to you.

You're literally inserting yourself into other people's marriages, removing the husband's headship right, and inserting your own definition of what their marriages should look like to you.

You're more strict and ridgid about these biblical roles and orders than God himself seems to be, lighten up a little bit.
Click to expand...
And people here are absolutely convicted they can't finish as Pharisees.

Just be rigid in law and pretty soon you are inventing rules.
 
HomesteadWife said:
They are majority voting block and component of it.

Which went from land holding men to expand to women, lower income, non land holding and people who had more to gain from government expansion and incentives vs freedom and liberties.
Click to expand...
So women aren't problem, but giving power to people who benefit from government?
 
MemeFan said:
So women aren't problem, but giving power to people who benefit from government?
Click to expand...
Women voting is major contribution to problem. We wouldn't be where we were today without woman voting block.

There are other people involved too but the weight of them in voting block is far less than women.
 
FeministVampireQueen said:
You can just calculate it. Search any state, check their eligibility requirements, you'll see that larger families who qualify for assistance under the low income threshold qualify for higher funding because they have more people.
Click to expand...
In other words, you don’t have any but are making assumptions.
I’m calling baloney and it’s up to you to prove your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top