Patterico's Pontifications


Should Women Have the Right to Vote? Is This Even An Issue???

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:11 pm

You wouldn’t think that women’s right to vote would be an issue in the United States in 2009. But apparently it is — in Texas.

What’s going on here?

The controversy surrounds an El Paso Indian tribe which bans female voting. Watch the video at the link and despair as a bunch of lawmakers sanctimoniously discuss how they shouldn’t be imposing their views on a sovereign nation.

This reminds me of when Silvio Berlusconi took a bunch of flak several years ago, for saying that our Western culture is superior to that of Islam:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well–being, respect for human rights and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.” He hoped the “the West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered Communism.”

I remember, at the time, thinking: well, he’s right. Our culture is superior.

I’m not talking about religion. I’m not even religious. I’m talking about respect for human rights — in particular women’s rights. I’m talking about honor killings. About lashing women for the crime of being raped. About preventing them from voting, and driving, and working. And involuntary female circumcision.

A culture that engages in such barbaric practices is inferior. Period.

And so is the culture of an American Indian tribe that prevents women from voting.

I’m no expert on the laws of this country with respect to the interface of American Indian sovereignty and U.S. sovereignty. But, morally and practically, it seems to me that some basic principles have to be non-negotiable. Things like severe punishment for crimes of violence; respect for property rights — and voting rights for women. Anything else takes sovereignty too far.

And if we can make Islam respect women’s rights, I’m for that, too.

44 Responses to “Should Women Have the Right to Vote? Is This Even An Issue???”

  1. If we had not given women the right to vote, we would not have been stuck with the last 3 democrat presidents. The Right candidate has won the men’s vote every time. The emotion vote is what tipped the scale the other way.
    Just sayin’ :)

    Jimbo (f93176)

  2. If they wanted to vote, they shouldn’t have been born “Native American”. Or Muslim. Or women. It’s their own damn fault!

    RB (4813a0)

  3. It’s not the same as Islam. The injun womens stay there and put up with it. In America. I don’t respect these womens I don’t think. At least not as much as I respect womens what have diginity.

    happyfeet (20bcab)

  4. Womens what have *dignity* I mean. And self-respect. And the sense not to raise their daughters as second class inferior little social afterthoughts. More of those ones please.

    happyfeet (20bcab)

  5. The deep misogyny of Moslem culture (especially Arab culture) should not be played down. But it is worth noting that four of the five largest Moslem countries have had female chief executives.

    RIch Rostrom (874cbd)

  6. “End Women’s Sufferage”

    Once a year some wise-ass (usually with me helping) runs a petition around the local community college and university.

    We always get a load of signatures. I think several folks have signed it multiple times over the years.

    I suggest that people who sign it thinking they are supporting ending a bad thing should lose the right to vote, based on rampant ignorance alone.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  7. I remember seeing an old episode of “The Man Show” where they did that at some farmer’s market in L.A.

    It was hilarious.

    Hoystory (08dea2)

  8. The joke never, EVER gets old.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  9. Its what the founders intended.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  10. They picked the wrong State to mess with. Texas has only one truly sovereign Indian tribe and it’s not the Tiguas. Mostly, they operate under a state charter, not very different from home rule communities. But I suppose, that if no woman from the tribe wants to challenge the tribe’s rules under Texas’s voting laws, there would be an issue of standing.

    nk (b0c40d)

  11. Lately, I’m seeing several examples of why the Standing requirement is too restrictive.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  12. Note that apparently it’s only the Democratic Texas legislators who believe it’s okay to ban women from voting for cultural reasons.

    Anon (8b9d41)

  13. See the [object]

    In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978), the Court upheld Congress’s authority to impose the Indian Bill of Rights but held that federal enforcement authority is limited to habeas corpus jurisdiction on behalf of persons in tribal custody. The Court held that Congress had not limited the tribes’ immunity from suit, so the act cannot be enforced directly against them. Thus, the Indian Bill of Rights is primarily enforceable in tribal forums.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (b6cc49)

  14. Tribal sovereignty is it’s own thorny issue. Sovereign, independent and yet reliant on federal subsidies…blah, blah.

    I am very curious to know what the three female legislators, you know, the ones in the video talking out of both sides of their mouths, had to say about the FLDS women whose children were removed from the Texas compound last year…

    Dana (137151)

  15. Artistic Dana, learn your place. You, as a woman, have no right to voice your opinion. Now, be quiet and get back in that kitchen. And what gives you the right to wear shoes?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  16. Been nice knowing you, John. :)

    Scott Jacobs (89480a)

  17. Oh, Scott, you so funny!

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  18. Comment by John Hitchcock — 4/1/2009 @ 9:46 am

    Oh gosh, let me first ask my husband if I have permission to denounce you!

    (Nothing comes between this woman and her Jimmy Choos!)

    Dana (137151)

  19. Darn, I should have said,

    (Nothing comes between this Indian and her Jimmy Choos!)

    Dana (137151)

  20. So, if a tribe wanted to obtain nukes, would they still be considered sovereign? The deference to sovereignty seems to hinge on what is actually done with that sovereignty.

    And Dana, if you actually do go into the kitchen, could I have some of what you’re cooking?

    Apogee (f4320c)

  21. No problem, Apogee…let me just finish birthin’ the babies!

    Dana (137151)

  22. Dana, I’ll catch your half-breeds!

    This is the funniest conversation ever.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  23. Dana – let me just finish birthin’ the babies!

    You’ve obviously never seen Python’s “The Meaning of Life”. Apparently both can happen at the same time.

    Apogee (f4320c)

  24. Whew! Thanks, Vivian Louise, it’s really tough birthin’ babies in the Jimmy Choos while plating food for Apogee. Can you imagine if I actually had to think, too?!

    Dana (137151)

  25. I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ babies Miss Dana, just fetch me a beer.


    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  26. Ummmmm, no child of Dana’s that I catch will ever be allowed out in a Cher outfit.

    And Dana, I’ll catch your babies anytime. Just, well, can I borrow those red Jimmy Choo’s to pick tomatoes? They look so comfy.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  27. So, if a tribe wanted to obtain nukes, would they still be considered sovereign? The deference to sovereignty seems to hinge on what is actually done with that sovereignty.

    They’re sovereign only from the several States in which they live, Apogee. They are still wards of the federal government, somewhat protected from its plenary power over them by the Bill of Rights and by whatever treaties the federal government wishes to recognize.

    nk (b0c40d)

  28. #28 nk:

    and by whatever treaties the federal government wishes to recognize.

    I am reminded of the hilarity that ensued when the Makah of Neah Bay attempted to assert their treaty right to hunt whales in the Pacific.

    Victim group meets environmental theology: no film at 11.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  29. I thought you neotheocons ate babies and killed old people. What is all this talking of birthing babies and cooking meals?

    JD (6f1fb5)

  30. Comment by EW1(SG) — 4/1/2009 @ 6:24 pm

    I saw a video of a “native” whale hunt. I don’t know if it was the Makah. What they did to that poor creature was almost enough to turn me into a PETA member. They shot it with .50 Barretts and stabbed it countless times with lances and harpoons. For what purpose …?

    nk (b0c40d)

  31. I think they sold the thing to the Feds as a religious, right-of-passage thingy.

    AD - RtR/OS (5021d1)

  32. Now if it was a Masai boy going up against a male lion with a cowhide shield and an eight-foot spear, that I could respect. Not endorse — I think we have too few lions left — but respect.

    nk (b0c40d)

  33. Err, BTW, it’s the Masai boy that has the shield and the spear, not the lion.

    nk (b0c40d)

  34. Well, we don’t want to make it too one-sided now, do we?

    AD - RtR/OS (5021d1)

  35. #32 nk:

    For what purpose …?

    In the case of the Makah, they are an economically depressed tribe for whom a single whale would nearly double the protein intake of the tribe.

    IIRC, the Makah did have a terrible time subduing the whale that they took in 1999. They had some passed down tribal knowledge of the hunt, but the last hunter who had actually taken a whale had expired some time before. They did take rifle(s?) on the hunt, to appease animal rights activists opposed to the hunt…but the primitive hunting of whales is indeed a grisly business, and a rifle is of limited utility against such prey.

    In this case, because the economic opportunities afforded the Makah are so limited, I have no problem with them exercising their treaty right to take whales; even if the process is somewhat like butchering a steer with a penknife.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  36. #33 AD:

    I think they sold the thing to the Feds as a religious, right-of-passage thingy.

    In a way that is true as well: the last whaler of the Makah had passed down the knowledge, but when he went it became the case that the tradition had passed beyond living memory.

    #34 nk:

    going up against a male lion with a cowhide shield and an eight-foot spear,

    The tradtional Makah hunt is equally a challenge that killed many Makah hunters before they stopped actively taking whales in the last century.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  37. This is from Phillip Caputo so most likely it’s not true, but I have read that among some tribes in the Horn of Africa a man cannot get married if he cannot present his bride with an apron made from the tanned skin of a human enemy he killed.

    nk (c2b047)

  38. #39 nk: One can carry tradition too far …

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  39. “going up against a male lion with a cowhide shield and an eight-foot spear”

    Better odds than Rachel Corrie going up against a Cat Dozer.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  40. “How the elephant got into my pajamas, I don’t know!”

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  41. Very odd considering in the Indian nations of the east and so many others women were politically and sexually equal to men…is this tribe of mostly Catholick religion?..although i just moved to Texas and our neighbor is still bitter about women getting the right to vote like in 1916 or something (he thinks only white men..well of mostly white ancestry cause his wife has distant cherokee ancestry so that means his sons do also)…so it might be a Texas thing. crazy ass world.

    cankels mccellulite (f11b56)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4132 secs.