Big surprise: Matt Naugle is not a fan of women’s suffrage.

And why would he be?

As he points out in a post this morning, not only have women voters helped elect Democratic Presidents they also support evil, big government programs like Medicare, Social Security and – gasp – Education!

Another big surprise: Matt reads John Lott – the economist who publishes non-peer-reviewed papers to support his ridiculous conservative views.

Views like affirmative action increases crime rates, abortion increases crime rates and increased gun ownership lowers crime rates.

Oh- and don’t forget that women’s sufferage is the primary cause behind out of control government spending.

It’s exactly the same kind of pseudoscience that was used for years to rationalize racist government policies by “proving” that blacks, jews, etc. are inferior.

  • Here is a list of published academic research in refereed journals that supports the claims that I make.

    1) Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime

    2) Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births

    3) Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws (in addition here is a refereed book by the University of Chicago Press: More Guns, Less Crime)

    4) How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? One note about this last paper. Some people use this paper to point to the fact that women’s political views were not being well represented prior to them getting the right to vote. Others claim that this shows that women shouldn’t be able to vote. If you read any of my popular writings on this, you would know that I don’t take a stand on this. My point is to investigate these issues and find out what the facts are. In this case, this particular paper can be used to satisfy people on either end of the debate.

  • Thanks for commenting, John. Glad to see you are using your real name.

    And thanks for the links.

    But it’s going to take a lot more than that to clear up your bad reputation.

    Hell, even ultra-conservative “journalist” Michelle Malkin doesn’t trust you.

    But even putting all of that aside, your claim that there is a direct, causal relationship between women’s sufferage in the US and an increase in the size and scope of our government is a severe oversimplification.

    At best it’s a weak argument that does nothing to help you achieve your obvious goal of smaller government.

    At worst it’s pure misogyny wrapped in pseudoscience.

  • No reason for me to expect you to be very accurate on your points, but at least for the issue under discussion it might be useful for you to actually read the research before you make the statements you make. Saying something is an “oversimplification” is easy to throw out, but it would be useful if you could actually put some substance.

    Can’t you even concede that you were wrong about the research being “non-peer-reviewed”? It would at least be a start in getting things correct.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!