Should Women Vote? Vox Day vs Louise Mensch: ‘Conservative Feminism’

  1. Home
  2. Culture Wars
By Vox Day vs Louise Mensch | 7:08 pm, May 14, 2016
Louise: We’re now debating feminism. Vox, you go first. Hit me with your best shot, as Pat Benatar once said.


Vox: Okay. Louise, I know that you identify yourself as a feminist, and you also identify yourself as a conservative. Given the connection between feminism and progressive politics, I am curious to know how you rectify those two positions, those two identities.


Louise: I don’t see that there is any reconciling to be done.  I can’t stand the social justice warrior thing of identify as. I am a feminist. I am a conservative. I said in our last debate to you that conservatism was about equal opportunity, and to me feminism is therefore a subset of conservatism. If conservatism is principally about equal opportunity, personal liberty, free trade, etc, feminism is a subset of that – because feminism argues that men and women should have equal opportunities.


Which is not to say the same opportunities, but equal opportunities. I recognize the biological differences between the sexes. To me there is no distinction between conservatism and feminism, except that feminism is a smaller version of conservatism, it’s a subset of it.


Vox: I agree that the logic holds. That’s within the logical structure your proposing that that is consistent, but the problem I have with that is that surely an aspect of conservatism is to conserve something. It seems readily apparent to me that feminism is intrinsically incapable of conserving anything from Western civilization, to even a functional, civilized society.


Louise: I would argue that Margaret Thatcher, for example, did a very good job of conserving Britain’s place in the world, and conserving the ability of the West to hold back communism. Even in America, Margaret Thatcher, unlike most British prime ministers, was widely known.


Now, she didn’t call herself a feminist because – like you said at the beginning -the feminist movement was then claimed by dreadful hippy harpies of Greenham Common, and now we have intersectionality. Saying, “I am a conservative and I am a feminist,” is an attempt to get back to the founding foremothers of feminism like Susan B. Anthony, who were pro-life, who were capitalists.


Vox: I’m a big fan of Margaret Thatcher. In fact, I saw her when she spoke in Minneapolis.


She was  fantastic, so I’m certainly not going to criticize her or argue that she didn’t conserve things, except in one important regard. In her biography, she mentioned that she got pretty badly played on the European Union, but I notice that feminists like you are certainly doing your utmost to rectify that particular error.


Louise: That’s right. If you look at the EU as it was then presented to us, it was as a free market, the Common Market.


Of course Margaret Thatcher, as a classic conservative economically, wanted there to be a free market. We would all or most of us on the Brexit side be happy with a free market. She wasn’t voting for a superstate. She wasn’t voting for the United States of Europe. We would argue in Britain that if France and Germany aren’t particularly proud of their nationality, then they are free to form a new superstate, but we don’t want any part of it. To my mind, Margaret Thatcher was about equal rights and equal opportunities, which made her a feminist.


Progressives here complain that she didn’t as officially push women forward, but to my mind again, that is also feminism. Feminism argues and conservatism argues for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If you’ve got fewer women that want to be politicians, and you do, you’re going to have fewer women in positions of political power.


Vox: Speaking of women in positions of political power, I’m curious to know if the fact that the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, which was written by Benito Mussolini, has as its very first platform a very strongly feminist position, not only demanding the right of women to vote, but actually demanding the right of women to equal proportionality in the governing bodies, both elected and otherwise. Does the fact that the literal fascists have a more aggressive feminist program give you any pause in your way of thinking about it?


Louise: No, because Benito Mussolini was lap dog of Adolf Hitler, and I’m sure you’re well aware that Adolf Hitler’s program for women was ‘Kinder, Kirche, Küche, Krankenstunde’ , meaning, “Children, church, kitchen, hospital.” That’s what he saw women has having a role doing. In Nazi Germany, women were awarded the Iron Cross if they’d had a certain number of children.


It was made the law in Nazi Germany that if a woman, a mother bearing this cross got in, let’s say a railway carriage, the other people had to vacate their seats for her, because her job was to be a brood mare. He took the most anti-feminist position that it is possible to take.


Vox: It’s your turn to ask questions now.


Louise: Okay, fine. Vox, your pinned picture on your profile on Twitter shows your very attractive and intelligent-looking girlfriend, or wife, with a strap line saying something like ‘she’s wonderful, she’s great, and I’m reliably informed she doesn’t exist’. Why did you feel the need to pin that to your Twitter profile?


Vox: Because there is a ongoing theory in the SJW circles that she does not exist. She has a number of pictures that are up from her old modeling days and whatnot, and so apparently they assume that my views are so entirely unacceptable that the chances I could be involved with such an attractive woman are absolutely impossible. Therefore, she doesn’t exist.


Louise: Exactly right.


Vox: It’s hard to argue with that logic, but the fact of the matter is that she does exist, and we have been married for quite some time now.


Louise: Right. That was a tendency of my question. What are the views you hold that are so extreme that social justice warriors think that no woman would ever want to be with you, where in fact you’re happily married?


Vox: The one that seems to upset them the most is the fact that I’ve been able to make a fairly strong case against women voting, particularly in representative democracies. The other thing that upsets them greatly is, on that score, is that I’m very strongly opposed to the idea that it is unlawful for men to have interest groups that don’t permit women in the same way that women have interest groups that don’t permit male members.


Louise: Right. I’m with you on the latter one, but let’s not be wimpy about this. Let’s go to the former one, which is much tougher to defend, at least a conservative or free marketer would say it was much tougher to defend.

I’m completely with you on individual, single-sex clubs. I see no particular problem with it, and people should stop whining about it. Why don’t you think women should have the vote?


Vox: First of all, let me just be specific. I don’t have a problem with women voting in a direct democracy of the sort we have in national referenda. I think that women are perfectly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions – when it’s a direct matter. However, in the quasi-democratic systems that we have, the limited representative democracies, the problem is that it is historically far too easy for demagogues to manipulate women.

However, both men and women are capable of being manipulated by the people who want to serve as representatives, Donald Trump being one example.




Vox: The problem is that it is very, very easy for demagogues to get women to fall for the security issue. If you look at the studies that have been done, Ann Coulter cited some them in one of her books, you can track very closely the percentage of women voting to the policies being enacted and moving to the economic left. My contention is that feminism is the most divisive ideology, and the most fundamentally societally destructive ideology since communism.


I think that it is entirely possible that feminism will bring down western societies faster than the economic ideology of communism brought down the Soviet Union.


Louise: Let’s explore that for a little bit. There are a number of grounds for objection, and I just want to triage my thoughts so I can get them in order.


Vox: We might be here all day.


Louise: I could be here all day. Let’s start with the fact your argument is,  if women vote, it will have a given outcome that will move society to the left. On those grounds, you should surely object to voting of any description, including by men, because your argument appears to be that if the people vote a way that you don’t think that they should vote, this shouldn’t be allowed.


Your argument in fact, as logically stated just then, is not against women voting. It’s against democracy itself. You think that if people vote, in this case you think women should be banned because they’re more likely to vote left-wing. That is an argument saying that if somebody votes the wrong way, they should be banned from voting, which is of course itself an argument against democracy at all. What do you say to that?


Vox: I say that you are mis-applying it, because as I said, I support everyone voting in a direct democracy, because there everyone is directly expressing their own will, and whatever they get, they deserve. If we all vote to burn down our houses, and then we burn down our houses, yeah, there was no deception there. We all knew what we were getting in for, and we got it.


Vox: What we’re talking about is representative democracy, which is by definition not democracy. We’ve already decided that we’re going to limit the will of the people.


Louise: No, we haven’t. The will of the people in a representative democracy, for example the United States, is that they choose, they have realized en bloc that it is too much to vote on every single decision directly. You’d have a referendum for everything from your local dog catcher to gun control, abortion, et cetera, and you’d presumably have as many referenda as people wanted to make motions. It doesn’t work.


In a representative democracy, the decision that the people are taking is we are going to elect you to exercise judgment for us in this way, right?


Vox: No, but that was never made. This structure was imposed on us, and so no one has ever, there’s never been a referendum supporting this. There’s never been any votes for that, but the rules of the representative democracy are such that they are intentionally designed to limit and even eliminate democracy. For example, in California, when you saw Section 8 pass, and then it was overturned by the will of a single judge.


Vox: The whole system of representative democracy is to a certain extent a misnomer because it is actually entirely anti-democratic. The whole reason these structures, both on the parliamentary side and on the judicial side, is specifically designed to prevent democracy. Once you’ve accepted that principle of, “Okay, we’re going to limit democracy,” then it’s really a question of where you’re drawing the line. I’m just suggesting that a line should be drawn in a different place than it happens to be drawn today.


Louise: But you are suggesting, you just said, which I don’t agree with, but you just said that representative democracy doesn’t equal to the will of the people, period, so you’re not really arguing against women having the vote. You’re arguing against anybody having the vote in representative democracy. You’re arguing for an anarchic … On the one hand you say you’d like to conserve things. On the other, you wish to tear down representative democracy, which would mean dismantling the entire United States’ constitution and system of government, because what you have just to women applies to everybody and everything.


If representative democracy is so bad, it can’t be okay, even if only men have the franchise.


Vox: But we’re talking about two different issues here. We’re talking about on the one hand a discussion within the context of representative democracy, and obviously it’s much more conceivable at this point in time to modify the rules of the existing system, and then we’re talking about completely trashing the system in favor of something else. That’s why I try to make it clear that if we’re talking … There’s limits. For example, if we’re talking about representative democracy, we could talk about opening it up to everyone.


We could talk about, right now they’re talking about expanding it to prisoners. Historically, they expanded it from 21 year olds to 18 year olds, and that sort of thing. It’s not a contradiction. They’re just two different tangential conversations.


Louise: No, I see it as a bit of a continuation, because your argument, if I follow you why women shouldn’t vote in representative democracy is that women are more gullible to a certain type of persuasion. Again, if women were more likely to vote in the way that you like, therefore, you would be happy to have them vote. The reason that you gave is not that they’re overall more persuadable. The reason that you gave is that they’re more persuadable to demagogues who are going to take the Overton window to the left.


Vox: Yes.


Louise: So are African-Americans. More likely, en masse, to vote left, if you generalize.


Vox: That’s true.


Louise: So are many minorities. In fact, are you arguing that we should – how many should we limit?


Vox: The American Indian vote, of which I am one, is certainly inclined to the left, as well. The implied issue here-


Louise: Wait a minute,  wait a minute. Did you just say that the Native American vote, of which you were one, is inclined to the left?


Vox: To the best of my understanding.


Louise: If you’ll excuse me, because I want to pin you down on this. You’ve made an argument against women, and obviously saying that women shouldn’t have the vote, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is a generalization. It’s classic discrimination. I mean that in the clinical sense, in that you’re applying a group of characteristics to a group of people. Since you’ve just applied these identical characteristics to the group of people to which you yourself belong, are you saying that you therefore believe that you should not be allowed to vote?


Vox: Without question. I don’t have any problem with that at all. I have lived for well over a decade in a country where I was not allowed to vote.


Louise: But you did not believe that you should be able to vote?


Vox: What’s that?


Louise: You believe that because you are a Native American, and therefore on race grounds, you should not be allowed to vote, because by your lights, your group of people is more likely to vote left, and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Because it seems to me to be ostensibly an argument that only conservatives should be allowed to vote conservative, which even as a conservative I take issue with.


Vox: But that’s exactly why the founding fathers set up the vote the way they set it up. They intentionally set it up so that only about 20% of the white men were able to vote, and they were the landowning class that they felt, rightly or wrongly, had enough of a long-term perspective that they would do more that simply vote their own immediate short-term interests. What killed the country is people voting only for either their own personal interest, or for the interest of their small immediate interest group.


This is the conundrum. No one has an ideal answer to this. Every single system we’ve ever designed politically has failed, and I think that we are reaching the end of the western, liberal, representative democracy model because I think that’s failed, too.


Louise: Let’s get this straight. The founding fathers, number one, aren’t God. I know this may be heresy to you, but number two, the founding fathers built into the constitution the ability to have it changed. As a result, there are many amendments, and you enjoy greatly the protection of the first amendment to the constitution, but they put into the constitution the ability to change it. Therefore, their original franchise is frankly irrelevant, since they built into it the ability to change it.


What do you think of Winston Churchill’s famous quote  “Democracy is a terrible system, but all the others are worse.” ?


Vox: I think that it’s true. I would just point out the fact that what he meant by democracy is not what we’re talking about with regards to direct democracy. I would like to see the transition from representative democracy to a techno direct democracy simply because it’s possible now. Not only that, it’s actually entirely viable considering, at least in the United States, most of the so-called representative don’t even read the legislation that they vote on.


Louise: I can tell you, the fact is, again, just like I can speak to this, having been an elected representative. Those are incredibly complicated. It would in fact, while commentators often make this point, you rely on summations, as we all do, in order to understand what the bill is arguing. Otherwise, you would have to be a lawyer in order to be an effective politician, which I think it’s one of these canards.


“Oh, they didn’t read the bill.” The fact is that bills are written in highly legal language, and as a elected representative, the responsible thing to do is to read, understand, and familiarize yourself with a summary of a given bill, because only a lawyer can understand the ins and outs of the clauses in which legislation, and that’s why it’s called legislation, is written. Limiting government to lawyers I don’t think would be a very popular idea with anybody.


Vox: No, but it does highlight some of the problems that I’m talking about.Let’s get back more to the issues of feminism itself. In Germany, you brought up the Kinder, Kirche… of the Germans of last century, but the problems that Germans of this century are facing is that over 36% of women who have a graduate degree don’t have children. Over 1/3 of the women who have college degrees don’t have children. Do you think that this is a positive thing, or do you see that as a negative development?


Louise: It’s a negative development, and it’s one of the reason that Angela Merkel got into the migrant crisis. She can’t persuade women in Germany to agree to have children. Obviously, the German structure has made it highly difficult and/or unpleasant, and they should look at how they are disincentivizing this. But women can’t “make a child” on their own. Partly saying “women don’t have children” gives us all the powers of the blessed virgin.


Yes, it requires two parents to make a child, so I find it odd when this discussed that nobody ever wonders whether or not young men wish to take on the financial responsibilities, and the parental responsibilities, of raising a child with young women. There isn’t parthogenesis here, so I believe that families and couples should marry earlier and have more women. Allow me to flip it back to you in a social sense.


Young men are getting married later and later. I would argue that the tendency of your question is, are not women being selfish and allowing women to die on the vine? I’d flip that back to you and say, are not young men being selfish? Because the age rate for marriage, which used to be low, has now become very high. Young men don’t want to be tied down. There’s a tendency that says they’d rather be a mayor on a “town” on Star Wars Galaxies (vintage game) – than being out supporting a real woman, manning up.


Providing for her, because let’s face it, for the first couple of years, she’s not going to be much of an earner. She’s going to be at home with those young children. I was an exception because I wrote novels, but there are few occupations that allow a woman to balance taking care of young children who do prefer their mothers, and at the same time making a lot of money. While you see the problem as being entirely women not wishing to have babies, I’d ask you aren’t young men, as evidenced by the increasing age rate for marriage, in fact just being so selfish and refusing to step up as fathers and providers?


Vox: I think it depends. I have to say that I don’t know, because I don’t know who is avoiding relationships with whom. We already know that the number of young men at university has declined relative to the number of women. I think there’s now, in the US there’s something like 12 million women in university, and only 9 million men. There’s obviously going to be, to the extent that people prefer peer marriage, there’s obviously, it’s going to be impossible, just based on the statistics.


With regards to who is refusing to marry, I don’t know. I think that it’s a chicken or the egg question. Are young men refusing to marry women because they don’t want to get married, but they prefer to play video games? Or do they not even have access to women? Are they not dating? Are they not given a chance? I can’t answer that off the top of my head.


Louise: I’m willing to put a little blame on both sides, myself, generally speaking, because our generation, my generation and younger, I think has become very consumerist, and children are hard work. They really are. The idea of maternity leave being time off to sit at home and eat bon bons is hilarious to any mother, because those of us that have worked in and out of the home know that working out of the home is 1,500 times easier than working inside the home with constantly demanding young children that don’t believe in a 15 minute coffee break.


You’d be lucky. Actually, it’s difficult, and for the young men, they have to provide for a wife that isn’t working, and is staying at home. What we see is a general plunging of the birth rate at the same time that people complain about immigration, the same people that are complaining about immigration are not forming young  families. Perhaps it’s a question of responsibility, but let’s get back to feminism in general, because I want to get some of your doubtless extremely controversial ideas.


Why do you think that women as a group are more gullible? Do you think that women as a group are less intelligent than men?


Vox: On average, no. At both ends of the bell curve … At the high end of the bell curve, women are less intelligent than men, but in the middle they’re about the same, and at the low end, they’re more intelligent than men.


Louise: You subscribe to the bell curve theories of race and sex?


Vox: I’m statistically educated, so yes. There is a bell curve. Whether you believe in all the consequences or not, the statistical bell curve is undeniable.


Louise: Yes, I think I rather agree, at least in terms of gender, which by the way I hate saying gender. It should be sex. Gender is for nouns.


Vox: I agree.


Louise: Nonetheless, the point about prejudice as a whole, and the reason that I think prejudice is unhelpful, is that it’s not scientific. In order that, it’s not even scientific in a statistical way, because you can take characteristics of a particular group of people, and yet somebody within that group of people is going to be buck that trend. As a result, if you ascribe median characteristics where people don’t necessarily have median characteristics, you’re going to miss the opportunities and the talents that people have at either end.


There aren’t many people like Joan of Arc, who for example at 14 is a completely untrained peasant girl. It doesn’t really matter whether she was a schizophrenic or a saint. She was a farm girl aged 14 who suddenly became a brilliant military tactician and drove the English out of France. There aren’t that many, male or female, that can do that kind of thing, but there are people at the edges, there are people at the clusters. Isn’t it not at all helpful, even from a statistical point of view, to take median characteristics and ascribe them to a group?


Vox: I totally disagree. Despite the fact that I’m a statistical outlier myself. In the American population, Native Americans tend to cast out towards the bottom of the IQ charts, and yet I am several standard deviations well ahead of the white or the Jewish average. Obviously, I understand that you cannot judge the individual by the median or by the average. However, when you’re making macro policy, you cannot consider the individual outliers.


You have to look at the larger trends and the larger statistical averages.


Louise: Why?


Vox: Because otherwise, your policies will fail. For example, if you create a educational system that is designed to operate for people that require one standard deviation above average, 116 intelligence, then it is going to fail badly if most of your students don’t come up to that level.


Louise: Not necessarily.


Vox: It is very important to understand how these averages and medians apply before you start making policy for large numbers of people.


Louise: No, but you’re quite wrong, if I may say so. A good educational system will have screening, or recognize that in fact the normal thing within any group of children is that there will be an intelligence deviation, and it won’t always be based on race or sex. The point is not to look at the race and sex of the child. The point is to provide screening within a class, so that the more intelligent children are taught at their level, and the less intelligent child are taught at their level and given useful skills in order that they may survive and thrive.


For example, Donald Trump. He’s quite clearly a moron. Or should I say Jonathan Miller? I wouldn’t be a good journalist if I didn’t take this opportunity, since you are one of the greatest Trump guys out there, to ask you what you think of the fact that Mr. Trump is obviously lying his head off about being Jonathan Miller.


Vox: First of all, I don’t see any problem in somebody as their own PR agent under a pseudonym. I think it’s a mistake for him to lie about it. If it is him … Here’s the other thing, though, that I think needs to be kept in mind.


Louise: How is it being his PR agent when the conversation on tape is just talking about him boasting about women, in a way, is relevant to our feminism debate-


Vox: Okay, I’m not up on that. I had just read a few headlines.


Louise: I’ll just quickly fill you in, if you trust me to tell you the truth on the substance. The bit that-


Vox: Of course I trust you.


Louise: Okay, fine. I’ll give you the real quick cliff notes. The conversation that was taped where he was acting as his own PR agent wasn’t a general, “Donald Trump is wonderful.” He was on tape with People Magazine talking about how he was going to dump Ivana, how he was banging Marla Maples and three other chicks and the same time. He also invented that he was sleeping with Carla Bruni. He also said that Madonna wanted to sleep with him.


When you say his PR agent, this is the guy who’s basically trying to get People Magazine to print that Donald Trump, Donald Stumpy-Fingers, is sleeping with an entire, a huge bunch of women, and also he made it a campaign issue that he said Ted Cruz had cheated on Heidi. In this tape, he is boasting about sleeping with not only Marla Maples, but three other women and inventing that he was sleeping with the Italian model Carla Bruni. That is the substance of what he did pretending to be Jonathan Miller.


My ex-husband would call that clown shoes, and I wonder if you can support that.


Vox: I can’t support that. That’s just crazy, but the sad thing is it’s probably not going to hurt him in the slightest because, to tie this back to the feminism issue that we’re talking about, the more that … Alphas, especially mega-alphas like Trump, they do have a ridiculous clownish side to them.


Louise: You think Trump’s a mega-alpha? The guy that dodged the draft for a bone spur, is afraid of germs? That’s what you think is a mega-alpha? How can you be a gutless physical coward and be a mega-alpha?


Vox: Because being alpha doesn’t have anything to do with-


Louise: Bravery?


Vox: Positive or negative character attributes. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with that. It has to do with how a man is generally perceived by women, and Trump is much loved by many attractive women.


Louise: Wait a minute. His money is loved by attractive women. The polling on women for Trump is terrible. On a factual basis, that’s just not true, is it? The polling for women with Donald Trump is through the floor. I see an alpha male right away as a dominant male, and a dominant male is not a gutless coward, doesn’t have a germ phobia, doesn’t dodge the draft because he says he’s got a bad heel.


Vox: No. Have you ever met Donald Trump?


Louise: No. How low are we setting the bar? I wouldn’t shake his hand. I wouldn’t shake the hand of a man that sneered at a war hero, John McCain, whilst dodging the draft because he had a dodgy ankle. I’m going to bleep out this word, but I do not like p*ssies. Not the female kind, the male kind. I despise weakness. I despise weakness in men.


That’s where I expect you and I, I make an odd feminist because I really despise that sort of metrosexual male that’s pathetic and crawling to women, and I also despise male cowards like Trump.


Vox: The thing is is that you don’t know for sure until you meet someone. You mentioned money, and I would point out that Mark Zuckerberg has far more money than Trump, and yet he has absolutely no appeal to women. He would drive them running away screaming. As one friend of mine said, who had met him, he said, “Yeah, I’ve met him, and the autism just drips off him.”


Louise: Whatever. There’s nothing wrong with being autistic. Being autistic doesn’t make you a sad little liar that boasts about women, who by the way you’re not even with. You’re not even with.


Vox: There’s nothing wrong with it, but I’m just saying it doesn’t tend to lend itself to charisma or magnetism. On the other hand, a friend of mine who, actually a relative of mine, who is very, very conservative and absolutely hated Bill Clinton completely. It was rather funny because after she met him, she had to admit that as much as she still hated everything about him, she found herself very powerfully drawn to him.


Louise: Me, too. I met him. I met him and it’s exactly same thing. I was joking to a friend of mine that you meet Bill Clinton, you look at him, you walk away pregnant. Bill Clinton is a great example. He has an absolutely mesmerizing quality, certainly over women, and I don’t know whether or not over men. One of the reasons that women liked Bill Clinton, despite his many adulteries is that when you looked at the women that Bill Clinton has dated, Paula Jones for example, others, including Hillary Clinton, you felt that here is a guy that genuinely likes woman, all kinds of women.


You got that almost anybody would have a shot with Bill Clinton. By the way, you didn’t feel that he was nasty about it. I guess I compare it to, this is funny, but Motley Crue, right? Motley Crue, who sang the strippers’ anthem Girls, Girls, Girls, I never objected to them because they all married strippers. They don’t have a double standard. Good for them. You can like women and still be a womanizer, and that’s why I think a lot of women were totally fine with Bill Clinton, because they felt that this is a guy who likes women, all kinds of women.


Women with large noses, women that are blue stockings. There’s more or less no kind of woman that Bill Clinton didn’t like.


Vox: Right, but Donald Trump only likes attractive women, obviously, but he has a similar sort of magnetism. I met him at the Republican National Convention in 1988, and there was definitely a charisma and a magnetism that all the women in the room clearly felt towards him. I think that he’s going to out-perform despite what the polls say, because not only does he have that element of magnetism, but Hillary Clinton of course offends young women as well as most men. She gives them all the heebie geebies.


Louise: Yeah, her numbers with women aren’t great, but let’s be frank. At the moment, the polling states that Donald Trump’s numbers of women are far, far worse. Let’s wrap up on the whole feminism thing. Let me ask you just a couple of questions. What do you see as an appropriate role for women? Aside from the voting issue we covered, what do you see as an appropriate role for women in society? Do you think that women should be out there in the workplace earning money?


Vox: I think it’s fine for women to be out in the workplace earning money. A third of women have always been out in the workplace earning money. However, the middle class and upper middle class young women would be much better served to be marrying and having children because that is the single most important thing that they can do. There’s absolutely nothing that they can possibly do, whether it’s working, curing cancer, anything else, there’s nothing more important that they can do than to be getting married and having children.


Louise: Yeah, most women would agree with you, but almost all women that work have children. After a certain age, your children go to school and you’re sitting at home all day, and that’s when most women go back into the workforce and take up jobs. There isn’t really the contradiction that you apparently propose between having children, having babies, having young children, infant children, yes, but having young children in general and having a career are not at all opposites.


Vox: Not necessarily, but certainly if you look at the statistics and the way that things have changed over time, you can see a clear connection between the growing number of young women working and getting degrees, working in the workforce right out of college, delaying marriage, and then not having children. Ironically, the biggest … A lot of people don’t realize this. The chief beneficiaries of young women entering the workforce post-1950, the chief beneficiaries are men over the age of 60.


It took until 1973 for the number of women entering the workforce to more than make up for the number of old men over 60 leaving the workforce.


Louise: Vox, Vox, do you think that young men in your perfect world, where women are homemakers, and that’s all they do, are men prepared to take on the entire burden of providing? Also, do you think that women should obey their husbands?


Vox: The first question-


Louise: They’re two separate questions, I know, but yeah, just generally speaking, I want to get this. Do you think the woman is below a man and should be guided by him? Do you believe that the man is the head of the house, and the woman should be obedient? Do you believe that women are submissive to men in general, and/or should be so?


Vox: I think in the case of Christian women, definitely. That’s laid out pretty clearly in the Bible.


Louise: No, no, no, no it isn’t, if you’ll forgive me. No, no, no, it isn’t. Not according to Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that submission is mutual. The husband has to submit to his wife, as well. I don’t know about born againers. Let’s take religion out of it, because everybody’s religion is their religion. Let’s take religion out of it. In general, do you think that women, because of the nature of their biology, are suited to be led and guided, and that men should be the head of the house?


Vox: I think that on average, that is ideally going to be the case. I think that in all couples, there’s always going to be a dominant personality and a submissive personality. I don’t believe in any form of equality at all.


Louise: You’re talking about psychosexual equality now? When you say you don’t believe in any form of equality, you mean psychosexually?


Vox: No, I literally don’t believe in any form of equality in material, spiritual, physical, logical-


Louise: What do you mean by equality? By equality, do you mean sameness?


Vox: We should probably save this one. That’s a whole debate on its own. We should save that one for another time.


Louise: I guess so, but it would be fun to fit into what you think women’s role is in the house, and whether or not, and in life, and in relationships.


Vox: Okay. I think the woman’s role in the house is something that has to be determined by each and every couple.
Louise: Do you think strong men like a challenge?
Vox: I think they do as long as they’re not stupid and repeated challenges.


Louise: Right. They like challenges, but not being brow-beaten.


Vox: Yeah. One of the problems, we’ve had discussions like this before on the Alpha Game blog, and talking about whether intelligent men like intelligent women, and that sort of thing. It’s one of those things that’s a bit more complex than yes or no, simply because I really enjoy having conversations with intelligent women. What I don’t enjoy, and what I find extremely tedious, is when intelligent women want to pick fights in order to somehow test themselves or challenge me or whatever just for the sake of the challenge.


That gets very tedious if it’s the third time that day.


Louise: Yeah, no, I get it, right, exactly. It’s been so often they do it that I will say as somebody that falls into that bracket, that a woman will quite often … test a man to see whether or not she can push him over or not, because she doesn’t want to be able to push him over. It’s actually, she’s asking for that not to happen, paradoxically.


Vox: That’s fine. That’s fine, and that’s totally normal, but when it becomes a problem is-


Louise: Yeah, and it’s all the time.


Vox: The guy comes home after a long day at work, and then there’s picking a fight.


Louise: And they fight. Yeah. Do you agree with the bond-


Vox: The main thing is, to answer your question, is that I think in most cases that both men and women tend to be happiest when the woman has someone that she feels she can look up to and respect in some way.


Louise: Mm-hmm (affirmative), agree completely.


Vox: When you have the reverse of that situation, where the man wants to look up and respect her, and she looks at him and sees someone she cannot respect, I think those relationships don’t tend to last very long.


Louise: I agree with you completely. Not to say that, as a libertarian, I don’t condemn anybody else’s relationship dynamics or lifestyle. That goes against my politics. As we say in Britain, for every Jack, there’s a Jill, but I do think in the generality of things, you are right. Women want to look up to their man, and I have a pretty high opinion of myself, not a low opinion of myself, as most people would agree.


For me, that made the pool of available men pretty small, because I really want to find somebody that I thought was better than myself, somebody to whom I could look up as a superior. By the way, it was a small list, because I think I’m pretty great, so it was a small list.


Vox: That’s the problem with what we see in those statistics with college. I think I was the first one to point out that what this meant was over 1/3 of college educated women had no hope of marrying a guy who they even consider a peer, because if she’s college educated and he’s not, then he’s got to be pretty great in some other ways, or she’s not going to respect him.


Louise: Yeah. There are other ways that men can be alphas. For example, they can start businesses, they can go into the military. There are other routes to respect than college, but yes, on balance. You do make a good point, especially since college is where most people of that nature meet their more, or certainly it’s a very fertile, it wasn’t where I met mine, but it’s fertile grounds.


Any last things you want to say on women and feminism? My conservative feminism is the feminism of just quite simple equal rights and opportunities, which is to say not necessarily equal outcomes for men and women. I realize that it isn’t for many of these lefty harridans that want to put in intersectionality, whatever else.


Do you agree that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities?


Vox: I think on the basis of what you proposed, yes. Your system, as I said, is logically consistent. I simply think that some of the principals underlying it are not backed up by the empirical evidence, and I think that my concern is that it took communism 70 years to fall apart. It looks like feminism is going to destroy at least one western society, and possibly more, in less time than it took communism to bring down the Soviet Union.


Louise: Last question, then. If feminism can bring down one western society, let’s assume you mean Germany, in less time than it took, men must be pretty weak if feminism can destroy their society, no?


Vox: I think absolutely. I think that the party ultimately responsible for the triumph of feminism is weak men.


Louise: Is there any remedy for this, or are women doomed to roam the world with a bunch of beta males doing nothing about it? Nature abhors a vacuum, and so as a Darwinist, wouldn’t you agree that if men won’t lead, women are going to?


Vox: Actually, I think that it’s worse than that. I think if a certain group of men won’t lead, other men will eventually fill that void, and I think that perhaps that’s what we’re seeing with the rise of Islam everywhere from London to America.


Louise:  I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but please reassure me that you do not condone the way that extremist Islam, that Wahhabism I would say more strictly, the cult that ISIS follows, Wahhabism, the way that they treat women and children is acceptable.


Vox: Of course not. In fact, I support the candidate who doesn’t think they should even be allowed to enter the country.


Louise: Actually, he does, of course. He’s already backed off on that, and he’s saying now it was complete spin. He never said it in the first place. I don’t know if you are familiar with the latest Trump yoga position, but his woman spokesman has come out and said, “That’s complete spin. He never said it about all Muslims.” Some Muslims.


Vox: But you get my point.


Louise: Until next time