Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

A horrible idea has been lurking beneath the dense surface of my skull the last couple of years. At first it just lay there quietly causing no trouble. But slowly over time, disturbed by events in the outside world it began to make itself more obtrusive. At first it was a barely audible "Psst. Hey Buddy!". Then it became a steady tap-tap-tap in the back of my mind. Finally, in recent months it has begun to holler and scream. "Let me out! Let me out, darn it!".

Part of me dreads the prospect of letting loose such a politically incorrect thought. Lord knows what damage it may do to me and those close to me. But it can remain trapped no more. Here it is:

Boy, that felt good! Whoa! Wait a sec there, ladies.... put down those pitchforks....untie those nooses...Put those tar and feathers to better use. At least hear my arguments before you snuff me.

Let me begin by saying that it is my deeply held belief that women are superior to men in most ways that count. Sure, we men do a better job of heavy lifting, killing people and governing countries. We were made to hunt, build, break, lift and kill. But outside of that, meaning most everything that actually moves the culture along and improves it, women are superior. But they are not very good at governing, and in a democracy governing means voting.

Let me also say that while using the aggregate term "women" I understand that not all women are the same, and just as some 16-year olds are undoubtedly mature enough to vote, so some women are no doubt masculine enough to do so. But rules of this sort must be applied across the board, and it is hard to think of a "Janet Reno" test that could be fairly applied to make the necessary distinctions.

So, now that I am sure you are prepared to proceed with open minds and tolerance towards the writer, why exactly is it that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Because governing is inherently a patriarchal function. The feminists have been saying this for years, and they are, oddly enough, correct. But, as usual, their perspective is all backwards. They would have you believe that governing is patriarchal because those evil men have kept women out of positions of power. The reality is that men are drawn to govern because effective governing demands male values and outlooks. The first and foremost role of government is to provide protection in exchange for loyalty. The second is to make and enforce rules. These are precisely the same functions that males serve in every social grouping in history. Government is manhood writ large.

The male view is outward facing - towards danger and the unknown. It is jealously protective of territory, willing to fight and, if necessary, to kill to protect it. It seeks to insulate and protect society, whether as small as a family or as large as China, from the dangers that lurk beyond the flickering light of the campfire. A society properly constructed, as our was for its first 100+ years, consists of multiple levels of government, each with its own prerogatives and jealousies: National, State, County, Local, Church, Fraternal Order, Family. The male instinct for hierarchy happily cedes power as required to those above while closely guarding those aspects of its own power that justify its existence.

The female view is inward facing - towards society and culture and the inhabitants therein. Within the same structure described above, they are the ones who actually get things done. They bear, raise and educate children, keep the men in line, sponsor the arts, and so forth. In essence, the men build and maintain the social structures, while the women fill those structures with the things that make life worth living.

Hmmm. Interesting theory. But what does it mean in the real world? When women pre-empt the fundamental male role of governance, they are not bound by the male values of hierarchy and control (including self-control). Although they also recognize the government as a male institution, they react to that fact as women react to men everywhere. They look to the highest level of government to "give them stuff", and by doing so they are pre-empting the roles of the men closer to home. This ongoing process has caused immense damage to society, damage reflected in such a variety of ways as single mothers, divorce statistics, gang violence and abortions. It is simply inconceivable that a male electorate would have spent two seconds debating federal aid to daycare. That is a job for family-level males, thank you, not federal level males. The same holds true for welfare rules, nationalized healthcare, the tobacco bill, most of the Great Society, and a good chunk of the New Deal (except for the dams and power plants, of course).

Few historians have drawn the connection between the imposition of female suffrage and the descent of American Society. It basically started going to hell as soon as women started voting. Even a "progressive", but pre-women suffrage president like Teddy Roosevelt is viewed fondly today by men of all political viewpoints. TR understood the male view and it resonates through the ages. "Talk softly but carry a big stick. And now excuse me, I'm going to bust some trusts, build a canal and shoot some grizzly bears". No Eleanor in that Roosevelt.

It takes 20th Century-style willful ignorance and adolescent arrogance to ignore the reality that virtually all governing structures in virtually all societies throughout virtually all of human history have ceded the governing role to males. These things simply do not happen by accident. Unless one is willing to believe that a vast testosterone conspiracy is behind it, this points to the fact that this sort of arrangement is very, very favorable to the success of the human race. Why are we so willing to blow away millennia of collective experience on the basis of completely untested nice thoughts?

Even if one believes that male-driven technological progress has allowed us to liberate women from nature's brutal constraints (which I believe is to a large degree true) this will have no short term impact on the instincts of men and women. Human nature doesn't change that easily. We can let women govern, but we cannot magically turn them into governors, anymore than we can magically turn them into pro basketball players just by calling them such. They will see the power inherent in government in a fundamentally different way than do men. They will see in it the means to, literally, feather their own nests - not from selfish or greedy motives, but because that is their instinctual imperative. They either don't see the power trade-offs that men instinctively understand, or they view them from a very different perspective.

One interesting reflection of this theory is the sex-based reaction to President Clinton's woes. Men, who understand the absolute importance of trust in the hierarchical power relationships of governance, are generally much more appalled at what he has done than are women. That women seem much more willing to buy the "private life" hooey underlines the fact that they have no clue what power and governance are really about. As long as Billy keeps sending home the cash they couldn't care less what he does with little sleazes in the Oval office.

A second hint that this theory has substance are the gender gaps. Notice the plural. For some reason, the media only sees one gender gap. In an age of rough party parity, if Republicans can't buy female votes, it must also by definition mean that Democrats cannot buy male votes. Why would this be? In light of the theory above, that party which dispenses the most goodies will attract the most female votes - especially those women lacking traditional male supports. Men, on the other hand, are more inclined to vote for the party more likely to leave them the heck alone so that they can govern their own kingdoms with minimal interference.

I am not so much of a fool as to think that what has been done can be undone. But it would be fun to have a debate about this. A discussion of what role voting does/ought to play in the governance of a democratic republic is long overdue in an age in which democracy has been largely reduced to ritualized extortion and focus-group wizadry. If I can get past that mob of angry feminists outside my door, we may have the chance to discuss it.