Sometimes people write to the problem pages of magazines, saying "a friend of mine has an embarrassing problem." The Agony Aunt gives the writer some advice to pass onto this "friend" who has BO, flatulence or whatever. Lawrence Auster has such a friend:

Here then is a proposal suggested by a friend recently, the basic principle and outline of which make a great deal of sense to me. I am not embracing the specific details, since a variety of means to obtain the same ends are possible. But to me the basic idea seems compelling.

The franchise, my friend said, should be limited to married men with children who are net tax payers.

This means that the vote, and the ability to serve in political office, would be limited to men who are responsible contributors to society. Men who are not married, or who do not have children born in wedlock, or who are not net tax payers, do not have a sufficient material stake in the society as an ongoing enterprise to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction. Therefore they should not have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in its direction. Women, generally speaking, are too much guided by emotion and personal considerations to have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in the direction of society. Look at the ridiculous things political parties today must do to appeal to women. The entire three day minority dog-and-pony show at the 2000 Republican Convention was basically for the purpose of convincing "soccer moms" that the GOP is "nice" to minorities. No serious politics is possible under such conditions. Married women are naturally represented in politics by their husbands, and can exert political influence through the influence they have with their husbands, but the husband is ultimately the one who votes for both of them. Unmarried women as a whole inevitably look to the state to be their provider, and therefore they should not have a direct voice in the government. Also, unmarried women under this proposal are barred from voting for the same reason that unmarried men are, which is that they do not have a sufficient material stake in the society to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction.

Unlike Auster, who obfuscated when challenged on this subject, the "friend" is direct in his desire to turn women into second class citizens. It is difficult to know where to begin with this nonsense, but here are two questions:

1. Jews tend to vote for left wing/democratic parties. Should they be disenfranchised?
2. Whatever happened to the idea of "No Taxation Without Representation"? It was the colonials who came up with that one after all.

Soon, no doubt, Auster will post comments from a motley crew of Stepford wives waxing lyrical about about the power of surrender. Auster's world is looking more and more like an Islamic state.