"You're Crazy!" Should Women Vote? HEATED Debate With Michael Knowles

Owning a home is full of surprises. Some wonderful, some... Not so much. And when something breaks, it can feel like the whole day unravels. That's why HomeServe exists. For as little as $4.99 a month, you'll always have someone to call. A trusted professional, ready to help, bringing peace of mind to 4.5 million homeowners nationwide. For plans starting at just $4.99 a month, go to HomeServe.com. That's HomeServe.com. Not available everywhere. Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month your first year. The client covered repairs. If you could wave a magic wand right now, would you repeal the 19th Amendment? I think it would be better for the betterment of the nation. Women really just vote, I mean especially on the left, just for abortion. And maybe we need to just reel it back a little bit. Leftist Blondie, are you a child who only cares about slaughtering infants? I hear this from you conservatives all the time. The countries where white women are the happiest are the countries where women are more equal to men. Switzerland, Norway, Sweden... You brought in race. You're the one who says white women are only happy in the whitest countries in the world. You're sitting here covered in tattoos and like a cross necklace and colorful hair. I just want to point that out. It's not fair. What's your point? Can you explain how having red hair makes me not a Christian? Traditionally people like Michael Moles on his team would call you a heretic for dressing like that and then calling yourself a Christian. Should women vote? Should I even be allowed to have an opinion on that? I have answers to both of those questions, but I brought women on to give me political cover. I'm very excited to have back to the show one of my favorite libs I've ever had on any of my shows that would be leftist Blondie. So you can catch in one of my bar fight episodes just a few weeks ago. Returning once again, Melanie Mack along with Emily Saves America. This is a nice reunion and an introduction to the show. Priya Patel, a conservative commentator. I'm going to tell a little tale at a school before we delve into the question, ladies. I've wanted to have this debate for a while because I found I was doing public events and people were asking me seriously if we should work to campaign to repeal the 19th amendment. I said, it doesn't seem totally realistic. I don't know, but they kept bringing it up and it wasn't just a bomb throwing kind of thing. They were very serious about it. So I said, okay, well, let me see. Let's have a panel about it. Let's get some lives and some conservatives, people who support women voting, people who oppose women voting. I couldn't find a conservative woman who supported women's suffrage. The number of women who were conservative in the year of our Lord, 2026, who actually think women should vote is vanishingly small. So I said, man, the culture really shifts real fast, doesn't it? Could we just go around the horn real quick? It may be an order of introduction. Leftist Blondie, Melanie, Emily and Priya. Just real quick, do you think women should vote? Yes, of course. I think that women should vote. It is in their best interests. Next up. I'm fine if we do or if we don't. Melanie? I think if we had the right infrastructure, we wouldn't have to. But in our current infrastructure, yes, we need to vote. Okay. Priya? I think it would be a near impossible move for our country to make. But I mean, women's suffrage goes against essentially what the founders established in our country. See, this is what I'm saying. This was the most diverse panel I could assemble. And you've got two conservatives who say, now women probably shouldn't vote or maybe I don't really care, whatever. One woman says definitely shouldn't vote. And then we have leftist Blondie out there who says, yes, it's in their interests. So without revealing my perspective on this just yet, leftist Blondie, you're the odd man out, odd lady out. Why should women vote? Something in between. Yeah. So I think there's a few different arguments. You can look at political philosophy that has a lot of arguments regarding voting and why citizens in general should vote. And if those arguments extend to women, then women also have a duty to vote. And I think things like people who opt into a social contract, whether tacitly or actively, have a moral obligation to vote. If women are included in those people who have opted into a social contract in a society where they benefit from voting, then they should be able to vote. Okay. Well, let's say they benefit from voting. But as you point out, the social contract, this premise of liberal government says that people get certain rights from the government and they have certain responsibilities toward the government. And so one of the arguments made by people who oppose women's suffrage is that men have many more obligations than women do, most notably perhaps the draft. They've got to go out there and fight in wars. The government can compel them to do so. Women, at least for now, don't have that obligation. So if men have more at stake, is more on the line for men, shouldn't men have more say over when we do and do not go to war? Well, that question wouldn't make it such that women should no longer be able to vote or shouldn't vote. It would just mean something like maybe men have more of an obligation to vote or maybe men who their roads should weigh more or something crazy like that. But that's not with women voting. I don't think that the draft should be a thing. So I think that saying like, well, men just have these greater obligations that kind of assumes that they should be. So I don't think that much of a greater obligation. We have a draft now at the very least. We have selective service. Well, presumably we're not here to talk about what currently exists. We're here to talk about what people should do. No, but I guess your point is, so right now, year of our lord, 2026, where a ton of conservative women now are anti-women suffrage, you say that we're all in this social contract together and that's why women should vote. And I'm just pointing out right now, men have certain obligations that women don't have. And so doesn't that contradict your argument? No, it doesn't actually contradict my argument. In fact, there's other supplemental arguments that could motivate women to voting. So I think that just because people have certain moral responsibilities doesn't mean that they somehow should get a more political say in something. And once again, we're here to talk about what people should do. If we want to talk about like, oh, OK, well, there's currently people in our justice system who are wrongfully incarcerated. Well, that's just the way it is. I guess they'll be wrongfully incarcerated. We should talk about what kind of society that we want to see. No, but I guess there might be some confusion here. I mean, we're not talking about morality necessarily in this question. You said that the whole premise of your argument is that we have a certain civic setup and we have certain benefits that we get from civil society and we have certain obligations. And so if certain people have more civic obligations, then shouldn't they have more rights within the civil society? Well, no, certainly not. You can look at like people like police officers. I think police officers in certain cases have more of an obligation to protect their citizens. But they volunteer. Now, do they do they have? OK, right. But they still take that responsibility upon themselves. So they do still have more moral obligations. I think that politicians have more moral obligations and political obligations than the average person does. Should a politician's vote matter? They volunteer too. Well, no, of course not. OK, you're the most opposed to it. Why should women not vote? The founders believed in universal suffrage. And I mean, I think that self governance comes with a moral responsibility, but also, I mean, some sort of stake in the game. And today we have a mass movement of people that are hyper dependent on the government that don't have any personal property that they own. They're not married. They have nothing that they're actually voting for other than emotional and and short term. I mean, essentially incentives, right? And of course that ties into the 19th Amendment, but it's not necessarily an argument to take away women's rights altogether. But I mean, I think that the problem was destructuring exactly what the fundamental political unit is. And that's the family. Yes, because look, when you say essentially that women are just more emotional and say, well, sure, maybe that's true. But also, you know, there are plenty of men who are low information, who are emotional. There are plenty of men who in an ideal regime probably wouldn't vote either. So I think you've really hit on the point here, which is when the country was founded, the fundamental political unit was the family. And then the 19th Amendment says, no, no, the fundamental political unit is the individual. And this is why there were so many women. I think it was the majority of women who opposed women's suffrage, opposed the 19th Amendment. And it's not just that they were self hating women or they were misogynists or something. There actually is a deep political philosophical question here, which is, well, hold on, what's going to be the basic unit of society? Is it going to be the family or is it going to be the individual? Exactly. And it was the family when the founders, I mean, wrote up the constitution and I mean, essentially founded our country. But now we have a society of hyper individualism and that's not only tied to women and feminism. It's obviously spread throughout society. But I mean, right now it's nearly impossible for young people to actually gain ownership of anything. And they're voting for more government dependence, honestly, and punishing people that actually make society that vote in the interest of the person and the ability to the ability to move upward mobility in society, upward mobility, essentially, they're voting against that. They're voting for more government spending and punishing the people that actually helps society run. But that's not just a woman thing. I mean, there are male lives. They're one of the most odious groups in the world. And so, you know, specifically, if you could wave a magic wand right now, would you repeal the 19th Amendment? I would. I think it's better for, I think it would be better for the country overall. And I would gladly give up my right to vote for the betterment of the nation. But do I think that that's a realistic thing that would happen today? No, but I think that we could go back to something in terms of, I don't know exactly how you'd structure this, but something of a single family vote. But there would have to be some sort of stipulation because, of course, the individuals that are unmarried and don't own property would vastly outnumber those that are married. But we'd have to structure it somehow to where maybe you're married or you're a property owner or you're a business owner, because I think that's the only way that we get back to a society that's actually voting for the betterment of the people. And that's how you earn self-governance, I think, at the end of the day. People who have a stake in society, Emily, you said you don't care. You don't care. You're being so flippant about your right to vote that you're feminist. I can't say you're feminist ancestors because a lot of the feminists didn't have kids, but like your great-great aunt, you know, was marching for her with the suffragettes. And you're just spitting in her face and saying you don't care that she won you the sacred right to vote. How dare you? Yeah, I mean, a lot of men helped out as well. And maybe she wasn't doing that. Maybe she was sitting at home and she was very happy and she didn't want to go work because it sucks. And I've never met a woman that really wants to go to work. I feel like it's kind of like we have to treat women now almost like children. It's like we gave them too much. Now we need to reel it back in a bit. You kind of have to teach them a lesson the hard way. And I don't understand. People are voting and they have no stake in the game. They're voting for more government. They want more free handouts. And then women really just vote, I mean, especially on the left, just for abortion. That's the only thing they care about. They want the right to kill innocent babies. And so I'm like, I don't know, maybe we gave you guys too much and maybe we need to just reel it back a little bit. Left to splondi? Left to splondi, are you a child who only cares about slaughtering infants? And do we need to teach you a lesson left to splondi per Emily? Well, if we want to talk about unjust slaughtering in the United States, I think we should address factory farming first. So I'm more considered about that type of issue if we're talking about lives unjustly being taken. So we can we can go into that kind of thing if you really want to. But I don't think that the abortion, of course, there's a fundamental disagreement that the taking of the fetus is life before sentience is unjust. So I think there really is. Just chickens, you would say. I agree. No, you're right. Yeah, no, killing a fetus that's not sentient is less unjust than killing an animal that is sentient and can feel pain and desires to live. So yeah, I think that's a it's a pretty moral grave wrong. But there's going to be pretty serious. I'm starting to go into one camp on the 19th Amendment now. That answer is pushing me much further. This is the problem. We want them to take away their rights. There's a lot more to say. First of all, go to preborn.com slash Knowles. A lot of good movements in the culture. We're seeing a return to tradition, a return to faith. But the odds are still pretty rough out there. The truth is often silenced in our culture. That silence has a cost. Right now, women facing unexpected pregnancies are bombarded with pressure and fear before they ever have a chance to pause, to breathe or to hear the truth about life and hope. That is why one of the many reasons why I stand with our sponsor, preborn. At every preborn network clinic, a woman is welcomed with compassion and given a free ultrasound. In that sacred moment, she sees what she's never seen before, the life within her. Fear fades, clarity dawns, and she has offered something the abortion industry will never give, which is the hope of Jesus Christ. This April, preborn aims to share that hope in 11,000 gospel conversations across their clinics. You can make that happen. For $28 bucks, you can sponsor one ultrasound. When a woman sees her baby for the first time on ultrasound, it increases the chance that she chooses life 80%. Every dollar you give to preborn is going to go towards saving babies. They fundraise for their admin costs separately. This is an amazing investment. I strongly recommend you give what you can to donate out Pound 250, say keyword baby. That's Pound 250 keyword baby or go to preborn.com slash Knowles preborn.com slash Knowles. So you want to take away their rights for 51% of the country because one percent of the population is vegan? Preferably more. That's what Michael was saying. He's over here for me. Also now they came out with plant property and they can feel pain, but technically if you eat vegetables, kind of evil as well. That's just incorrect. Well, if plants have feelings and plants can feel pain, then you should eat vegan because then you're eating less plants. But anyways, so to address what Michael said, I know this is getting a little far afield, but if you're not eating plants and you're not eating meat, are you eating rocks? Certainly you're eating organic matter, I think. Isn't that how eating works? Eating vegan causes less crop deaths and less animal deaths. So yes, you should eat and it also causes less plant deaths because most of the crops that we grow go towards livestock. I'm going full Al Bundy on the 19th amendment every second this conversation. Melanie, do you? We're bringing you over, Michael. Melanie. Well, I really want to address really quickly if I can what Priya said about, you know, you should have to own property or maybe have a family or be married to vote. So then where you find excluding, you know, and what Michael said about like, well, men have to go to war. So what about the men who can't go to war? What about the people who will never get married or can't get married like nuns? Should nuns not be able to vote? Should certain priests not be able to vote? I honestly don't think most nuns do vote, to be honest with you. No, in fairness, if they vote, they probably vote Republicans. So I do want to preach as the nuns, but. Right. So you're disenfranchising groups that you don't want to disenfranchise by doing that sort of thing. Well, that's a very good point. This is my hesitation, really, because I think what the crux of the matter is, is a disagreement over how people view voting in itself. Some people think voting is a good in itself. Like when Puff Daddy 25 years ago, before the freak offs and all that before the prison, when he would just go out and say, vote or die. Like I'll shoot you if you don't vote. Doesn't matter who you vote for. You just got to vote. And I thought, well, I don't know, voting in itself doesn't mean anything at all. You go, you pull a ballot these days. You, I don't know, you like type a number on a computer. And so that doesn't matter. It's an instrument for good government. And so I'm kind of with, I'm with you, Priya and Emily. I would, I would happily surrender my vote if they disenfranchised millennial cigar smokers and that would give millennial cigar smokers your super right wing. But if cigar smokers generally, but if doing so would give me better government, take my vote. I don't care. Now I get a Tuesday free every November. Melanie, do you have a more reasonable take? I do. Cause I think some of these are short term solutions that sound all fine and good right now. I think that if women didn't vote right now, it would fix a lot of short term problems. But we have to look at the big picture here and we have to look at before when women didn't vote. It was because most of them, the high majority were in the home and they didn't, they weren't out in the workforce. Now almost 50% of the workforce is women. And then also you have the fact that almost everybody who voted back in the day before women could vote were Christian men. And so right now society isn't exactly functioning optimally in a Christian manner. And I think that, that truly how we succeed as a nation is going to be with God. And so if, if we are not acting as a Christian nation, then I don't trust giving up my vote to Godless men. I just don't. And I think that especially given like the rise of Muslims that are just taking over everywhere and things like that. We run into potential issues in the future of where it's like, okay, I don't want to be forced to wear a hijab. I want to at least be able to have a voice and say, no, I ain't down with that. So if society really a focus, put their focus on God, then, and then we had more rules in place like, okay, a landowner. And all of this stuff, then, okay, maybe it can work. But right now in a pretty secular society that isn't focusing on God and that has gone full clown world in a lot of ways. I don't trust giving up my vote. Okay. So leftist Blondie says that women should vote because chickens are more precious than fetuses. And Melanie, you're saying women should vote because Muslims and atheists threaten all of us in the country. Leftist Blondie, would you? So then therefore leftist Blondie, you, you, sorry, I've got to point that way. You are on the side of Melanie. You both think that women should vote, but you don't fear Muslims and atheists. No, I'm not really generally scared of Muslims. Not in the U.S. at least I might be. I may feel different if I lived in the Middle East, but they're not the most feminist in my experience. Maybe the idea is maybe we enfranchise the Muslims and then the Muslims, they have a lot of kids and they spread out all over the place. They've already taken over several towns in the United States and then they are the ones who repeal the 19th Amendment. Kind of. Right now it's a small replacement, but I guess if they're very feckoned, they could have a great replacement. And then when they come into power, I don't think there's a lot of women's suffrage in Muslim countries. Yeah, I'm not scared of Muslims replacing me. That's very strange. I don't know if we're like the superior culture. We can be so easily replaced. And it's backed up by data and there's government documents. You can literally go read about it and it's literally happening. Look at the UK and then what is this? And the Democrats brag about it too. People are too busy sterilizing themselves, having abortions, taking SSRIs, being single, being girl bosses. You know the countries where? They're popping out 50 babies. Look at the Somalians. It's like that is never real happening. You like it or not? You know where the white women are the happiest? Take a guess. In the men and women of the lost souls. Where? Are you going to check yourself in? Where are white women the happiest? I'm good. Left is plenty. Where are white women the happiest? Muslim countries. Okay, so you prove my point. The happy ones are Muslim countries are taken away. We should take away the right foot. Where are the white women the happiest? The countries where white women are the happiest are the countries where women are more equal to men. And they also have greater reproductive rights. Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, all the Nordic countries. Oh, like, the shamanically white countries. Okay, all right. Well, I don't look. I don't want to touch that one. Yeah. Are we talking about great replacement or are we talking about voting and whether or not you should vote? You brought in right. You're the one who says white women are only happy in the whitest countries in the world. I didn't say, I didn't say, I don't want to be part of that. I think that's incredibly dishonest coming from the right. That's what I'm claiming is that white women are only happiest in these white countries. I'm saying that the only happy in those countries. I'm saying that the correlation with women being able to vote and have reproductive choices makes them happier. And that's backed up by data. That's actually. Women can vote in a lot of countries. You're the one who said they're only happy in the white country. Why are white women like they are in the country? Do you think that I think that women in Afghanistan are happy? No, because you think they're only happy in the white countries. Okay. So on women's happiness, I want to make the, hold on. I just want to point out. So over the 20th century, you had this rise in feminism. In the early 20th century, you get the 19th amendment and the first wave of feminism, then you get the second wave of feminism, this explosion in the 1960s. Then we had the third wave in the 90s. Now we're in like the 57th phase or something. But there was a strange study apropos of our conversation about women voting and whether these supposed rights have actually made them better off. There was a study that came out of Yale. I think it was 2008. It was called the paradox of declining female happiness. And it found that during the rise of feminism, women became less happy. Now men also became less happy, but women became even less happy than the men did. So the Yale study viewed this as a paradox. They said women should be so much happier because feminism's on the rise. And now they're single and they work in the widget factory for Mr. McGillicuddy and they vote and they sleep around and they can kill their kids. And it should be so great. But then it turned out they got really unhappy during exactly that period of time. So wouldn't that be an argument against the various feminist policies potentially all the way up to including suffrage? Well, there's a problem here with correlation and causation. And I'm sure you understand that as a college graduate yourself that not only like something just existing at the same time doesn't mean that that thing causes the other thing. It doesn't mean it, but it does raise your eyebrows. It doesn't mean it doesn't. Okay, should. Okay, well, then take this example and raise your eyebrows at this. Ice cream sales go up in the summer. So does violent crime. Is ice cream sales correlated now with violent crime? Of course not. These things are separate. No, but I guess the distinction between this comparison of violent crime and ice cream and the point that I'm making is that we're studying on the one hand, additional political licenses and rights given to women and new social opportunities given to women and how women are feeling about their state in life. So those two things are intrinsically related, whereas violent crime and ice cream have nothing to do with each other. Intrinsically related? Yeah. All you're doing is begging the question. And that is causing it. All you're doing is begging the question. I'm not begging the question. I'm making an observation that habit and feeling related to each other. You are assuming that that is true when that's what's in dispute. You're assuming that that's true when that's what's in dispute. I'm not just assuming that. I'm explaining why those two things are related. The things that I do during my day are directly related to the way that I feel, whereas an ice cream cone and a murder are very likely not related at all. You could get an ice cream cone and then go commit a murder. What the f*** are you talking about? Ice cream does not make people commit murder. That's my case. I don't want to be guilty of crime. Yeah, and feminism and I disagree that feminism causes people to be unhappy. Women to be unhappy. So make the case. Yeah, I feel like she was just going on about how women in countries where they can have abortions are happier. And I feel like that's an accurate as well. It's not the abortions that are making these women happier. Women who have abortions, most of them experience trauma and it messes them up. So this is a whole Psyop to make women vote for something that actually hurts them. And that benefits men who can sleep with women without committing to them and without marrying them or taking care of them. So all it is is just benefits men. I mean, that's just like we can paint abortion apps. Yeah, just benefits women and let's win women for their bodies. That's all it's about. And especially if you look at the history of abortion and all of that kind of stuff, like a lot of it was because men wanted to be able to sleep with women and then they somehow were able to manipulate women into thinking that it's good for women to abort their babies because these men don't have to take responsibility for sleeping with women and using their bodies. Back-check true. We can paint abortion out to be this thing that traumatizes every single woman and that no woman should ever do because some women experience trauma out of it. But 95 percent of women think that the abortion after the fact was the right decision for themselves. But that number is different from abortion regret. You're right that a very high number of women who have abortions go on to say, I stand by my decision. I think it was the right decision. But a very large number, I think it's in the 60s, but I don't have the exact statistic, but I do say they experience some form of regret or trauma or difficulty. So those two things can be true at once. You can say, I found this very dramatic, but it was still the right decision. That's how the statistics kind of lie about it. Regardless, though, to Melanie's point, what she's saying is, look, women have voted for all these things. Women got the right to vote. They voted for all these things like abortion. These things have made them unhappy at a personal level. And I mean, unless you're unwilling to say that any social phenomena can have a causative relationship, I think we would have to say that probably there's a little bit of causation there. And so therefore you'd say, what's the good of voting? What's the good? If it's made even the women, the people who was intended to help unhappy, what's the point? What good did you get out of it? You got to pull a lever in a voting booth? This is still a classic question begging. I don't agree to the conclusion and you're assuming the conclusion. Again, I'm so OK. Let me let's let's step back because I'm not begging the question. But you are. Is it the case that women have become less happy over the last 60 years? Yes, but that's not sufficiently explained by feminism. Why have they become less happy? I we actually talked about this already. I think it's social and wealth inequality. Why are they less happy and the rights of hyper individualism? Why have they become even less happy than men? Men just don't know why men become unhappy. That's a more important question to look at is why have men also become more unhappy? That's not the question. Is it also feminism? That's not the question. Is it also feminism? Why have the women in particular become unhappy coincidentally exactly over the period of the rise of feminism? Why do you reject my answer, which is that it probably has something to do with feminism? So what's your answer? Why would feminism disproportionately make women unhappy? Because it's a false anthropology that makes mistakes about human nature. And it tells women that the only way for them to flourish is to pretend to be like men with whom they are indiscernible. So it says that men and women are identical and indiscernible rather than what they actually are, which is complementary. And so by telling women to behave exactly as men, you are acting contrary to nature. And because of that, women will flourish less and be less fulfilled. I bet you can do something like look at modern feminist philosophers and ask them if they truly think that there's zero differences between men and women, which we've already also talked about. I don't think that there's zero differences between men and women, nor do I think men are women. So I think that you doing this- So then the rights that men have don't necessarily need to pertain to women. Cherry pick certain feminists and then you go, oh, well, it's part of a core thing about feminist philosophy that you must think that men and women are the same. And then this is the thing that causes women to be somehow more depressed or more unhappy than men are. Well, wouldn't that also work the same way and apply also to men? Yes, men have also become less happy, but because- But why not at the same rates? If feminism is the cause, feminism affects everybody. Because it does affect everybody and it's been bad for everybody. But feminism tells women in particular to act in a way that is contrary to their nature in a way that it doesn't exactly tell men to act contrary to their nature. You don't think that's not even true. You don't even believe that. You don't even believe that. I do really think that because I hear this from you conservatives all the time that you think that feminism is the thing that caused the feminization of men over the last 50 years. You don't believe that? I think a lot of that is a story in the veganism. So you do think that it has come the same way. Yeah, I don't think it's just feminism. So I think it's a society and I think it's everything that like poisoning men with. And I also think women have like also aggressively like shamed men for so long that it's like inherently made them very feminine. It's like, you know, I see girls like if you don't support abortion, I can't be with a man like you. If you like open a door, if you hit on me, if you ask me out, you're like creepy and then they're like going on dates and it didn't go well and they put out then they feel bad after now. All of a sudden the guys are rapist. So I think it's like a mix of all those things. It's not good for either. But also, can we just use like common sense as someone who was on the left and is now probably far right as you can go? Do I enjoy work? Does it fulfill me? No. No, no, no. No, my lovely boyfriend and my dogs and hopefully children one day that that that is like that's the dream. I love that. That brings me happiness. Do you think in period talk about how much we love our jobs and it's so happy or me and any of my friends? No, every single woman I talk to is like, I hate working. It sucks. I can't wait to find a good man and I can't wait to be new friends. It's like one out of 500. I agree. It's like one out of 500 women is a Margaret Thatcher type, but 499 out of 999 out of 1000 is exactly with you, Emily. That's the case. And to your point, leftist Blondie, if you if you say no, Michael, you misunderstand feminism. You just you missed the invisible ink in Mary Wollstonecraft or Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan. Really, men and the feminists say that men and women are quite different. Then you say, OK, well, then why do we need to extend the exact same political rights to women that we do to men? I thought that was your original premise. That's like saying like, well, if white people and black people are different in certain cultural ways or things like that, I don't think why should we extend the same? Why should we extend the same? Why should we extend the same rights to them? Because the difference is much greater than a racial difference. But you're you're you're missing the point here. We could take somebody who's disabled, somebody who's wheelchair bound, someone who's wheelchair bound is significantly different from somebody who's not wheelchair. No, I disagree with that. We should start excluding them politically. I disagree with that. I think that you don't think that somebody. No, I think the look all individuals are different to a certain degree. But I think that the difference between men and women as categories is much, much greater, almost immeasurably greater than the difference between an Italian guy and a black guy and a Jewish guy and a guy missing an arm and a guy in a wheelchair. I think that difference, that sexual difference is really the fundamental distinction within human nature, whereas racial differences are a little more difficult to nail down. Such that it would exclude someone for voting or should exclude someone from voting? Well, I'm just listening to you, ladies. I'm trying to get your opinion. I haven't voiced. OK, so there's a there's a argument. I'll give you my opinion at the end. I'll give you my opinion at the end of this. Right. So, is Priya, you've been a very ladylike in your silence and demuring in this conversation. However, has leftist Blondie convinced you at all? No, not remotely. If anything, she's radicalized me even more to abolishing the 19th Amendment, I think. But no, I mean, she's she's sitting here saying that feminism doesn't inherently argue that men and women are are equal and have no differences at all. But they don't need to make that argument to essentially advocate for exactly that. And that's all feminism is. And it erodes the family, which is the fundamental political unit. So if you take away everything that society is supposed to stand on, I don't know what I don't know what we're even arguing for. Yeah, this was the argument. This was the argument from the anti suffragettes from all those ladies who said, you know, this is giving women something that we do not want. This is upending our political order. This is a threat to the family. We've seen many other threats to the family and attacks on the family and the redefinition of the family in recent years. So so I have a solution. Do you want to hear my solution? My solution is I agree. One is not going to repeal the 19th Amendment generally. And nor maybe should we to your point, Melanie, you know, we live in a pretty degenerate culture right now. So I don't know that that would necessarily be good. But I don't think that voting is a good per se. I don't think the framers and the founders thought voting was a good per se. In fact, the president was elected by an electoral college in the early years of our republic, not by popular voting. Senators were elected by the states. And so this idea that, you know, individuals universally going out and voting is as American as Apple pie is totally revisionist history. What I would do because I do want the nuns to vote because they vote for Republicans and I do want married women to vote. They vote Republican and I do. So here's what I would do. Without removing a single woman vote, what I would do is take away the votes from the single women. And I know there are going to be plenty of conservative single women, but just generally speaking, the single women vote for Dems and the married women vote for Republicans. So I take all the votes from the single women, even though some of them are Republicans. When they get married, they'll become conservative. They'll get to vote again. I'd make an exception for nuns who are married to God and I would give them two votes. And then all the single women would have no votes whatsoever. The men would keep their one vote and therefore the families would get three votes and the single people would get no votes and we would live in utopia. Does that work? I think this is a really possible thought. I've thought about it a long time. That does sound pretty great. But I think a really practical solution is that it's on us, those of us who are Christians to share the word of God and to make disciples and to be fishers of men because we really just have to rise up as a nation. We have to turn to God and we have to call to him for help and we have to seek him. And so the more of us and the more Christians that we make, that we bring back to Christ, then the more we can get on focus and on God's plan and that's the only way that we'll be able to thrive as a nation is focusing on God. So how do we do that? I mean, I can't. This one, I'm pretty confident of the causation relationship between feminism and female unhappiness. I'm less confident of this one, but religiosity has declined since the 19th amendment. That might be a stretch. So how do we get back to it? How do we get back to religious country? How we get back to it is we stand against this hippie Christianity and we stand against all of this modernized version of Christianity that's just meant to make Jesus into some hippie and that makes the Bible conform to current societal standards. And we need to be able to just really dive into the Bibles and look at it and say, hey, this is the way things work. We try to conform the Bible to our ways and things all go to trash and you've got pride parades and people cutting off genitals and things like that. So let's focus on God's order and then on us as believers, we need to just be sharing the truth. We need to be calling out sin and we need to be calling people to repent. And if we share the word of God, faith comes by hearing the word. So as people hear it, then the Holy Spirit will take over from there and we have to do our part with sharing. I agree with that so much in theory, but I see a political problem here, which is that seems to assume this libertarian view that politics is entirely downstream of culture. And so you just got to change hearts and minds and that's how you change political order. But I think there's also an ancient and even Christian understanding that the law is a teacher. St. Paul tells us that too. And so the political order itself will change people's mind, will to some degree cultivate habits of virtue. And we live in this very degenerate culture now that promotes all sorts of weird sex stuff and killing babies and opening borders and not forcing the law on all. So don't you need a shock to the political system? Don't you need a serious reform that might begin to change those hearts and minds? And in our current system, how are we supposed to get that? Yeah, I think we need that too. I don't think anybody has any business being in office if they're not a Christian. And I think that we do need to have more laws that are Christian laws. Like we need to put a stop to the gay marriage. We need to put a stop to a lot of these stuff, the abortion and all of these things. And I think these things need to be implemented like it's on us as Christians to, you know, bring other people to Christ. But then also just as a nation, we're not going to thrive if we if we are catering to degeneracy. So as a nation, I believe that we need to have Christian laws as well. Leftist Blondie, would you go along with that plan? Women get to keep the vote, even even the liberal single women so long as there's a religious test that only Christians can serve in government? No, I'm not a fascist fascist. That's not everything is fascist. I agree. The religious test is going to be hard. But you wouldn't go along with that. Yeah, sure. I mean, if you feel the same way about Islam, then if you if you know Muslims are coming in in the troves that they're coming in, and then they should be able to make the same parody argument to you. No, because we're a Christian. Yeah, we are. We were. No, no, no, they're going to make the same argument, but from Islam. It's I think it's quite ironic saying like liberals are painting Jesus out to be this hippie, dippy, woo, whatever thing. And you're sitting here like covered in tattoos and like a cross necklace and colorful hair. I just want to point that out. It's not very. Okay, what's your point? What's your point? And so just the irony is not on me. Or is the irony. Can you explain. Can you explain. Can you explain. Left. Can you explain. No, I think tattoos are great. I think tattoos are great. I think. Okay. Traditionally. Traditionally. People like Michael Moles on his team would call you a heretic for dressing like that. And then calling yourself a Christian. I would never call her a heretic for dressing like that. dressing like that. We'll have to get into our discussions of justification. He's had me on the show multiple times. So I love Melanie's style. I think she's been the way she looks. Yeah, so hold on. We've now degraded the political order to such a degree that only appearances matter. We're not even discussing what goes beneath the skin. Look, ladies, you've radicalized me. No, it's just funny. A final word, Priya. No, I mean, I liked your point, Michael. I think we need to reorder society in a way that we, yes, put God at the forefront, but also so that we take out this hyperindividualism that we have just infested in every aspect of our society today. Well, look, I totally, I've been radicalized by all of you. And it's a real white pill that these young, vibrant women are thinking in this way that's more right-wing than like the fattest, baldest conservative of 1995. And I feel great and I would very happily and tactically give three of the four women on this panel 20 or 30 votes each, 20 or 30,000 votes each in every election, actually. But I won't say which is which. Ladies, wonderful to see all of you. I look forward to seeing you all again. Thank you. See you all next time. I'm Michael Knowles. Feeling very hopeful about our culture. See you next time. Thank you.