You know, there are women who strongly believe that they should not be enfranchised. Well, not just themselves, but that all women are incapable of making sound

You know, there are women who strongly believe that they should not be enfranchised. Well, not just themselves, but that all women are incapable of making sound voting decisions. After all, women are not quite smart enough to understand the nuances of politics, and god forbid we make important decisions about war or healthcare that way. Moral panics about suffrage are nothing new. Notably, opposition often comes from the very group that is disenfranchised: humans are nothing if not aligned, and there's always someone who is going to hold an unusual, self-effacing position. I will give you credit for at least being consistent in your position when applying it to yourself, but that doesn't give it any more weight than the idea that women should not be allowed to vote. Or the newly liberated African-American men before them, or Native Americans who got their rights after. It's historically been a losing argument and it seems awfully unlikely that the current situation is any different. Also, while we're splitting hairs: I would consider many individualist westerners to not care about human rights. Actually I think a lot of the time most Americans are not voting for their rights, usually because they are mostly static until significant change happens to make them care (say, the civil rights movement, or the fall of Roe v. Wade). And I think some of them are actually actively against the cause of human rights, seeking to deprive and limit the extent to which they apply. I know people who won't vote for Harris because of what's happening in the Middle East. Some of them want more bombs going there and some want fewer! I think it is actually quite rude to assume that your cultural divisions are somehow special and unheard of amid the existing voting population, or that they are enough to destabilize the country. That does not seem to be supported by history.