Well, ladies, you did it again. No, not all of you. But
here’s the reality: If only men had voted this election, the GOP would have
held the House and picked up some seats. The Senate’s Republican majority would
be even greater (than plus seven or eight) and the Trump train would be
full-steam ahead. But women breaking for Democrats by roughly 20 points made
this impossible — and Mad Max (Waters) a committee chairman. Egad!
Here
are the stats:
Women constituted 52 percent of the electorate and went for Democrats 59-40.
Men went for Republicans 51-49. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t the guys’
finest hour, either; when almost half my fellow “men” are voting for the party
of irrationality, well, we’re perhaps seeing the consequences of the recent
decades’ 30-percent drop in
testosterone levels.
Yet
this merely reflects a simple truth. Regarding voting, men really stink.
Women
stink worse.
For
the unacquainted, know that the electoral sex gap (called the “gender” gap by
those misusing the quoted term), manifests itself every election. Men went
for Trump in 2016 by 12 points; women for Hillary Clinton by 12; Men
chose Mitt Romney by eight in 2012; women, Obama by a dozen. Even in the 2010
wave midterm election that vaulted the GOP to legislative power, women supportedDemocrats
49-48.
As
commentator Ann Coulter put
it in 2003,
“It
would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In
fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in
'64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.” (Video below
of Coulter discussing the matter)
Another woman thus opining is journalist Megan Fox.
Appalled by the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus, she wrote Oct.
6, “Never have I felt more ashamed of my sex than in the last two weeks
watching hysterical harridans trashing tradition, decorum, and common decency.”
The performance of these “screeching gorgons,” as she put it, “during this
uproarious time has called into serious question their fitness to even
participate in any serious matter of state. For the first time in my life, I
felt I needed to go back and see what the arguments against letting women have
the vote were. I had a sneaking suspicion I might find some sage warnings of
what we are witnessing today.”
Fox
then presented the following very interesting passage from British politicianViscount Helmsley, articulated during a 1912 parliamentary
debate:
The
way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last
year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to
the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as
the mental equilibrium of the male sex....It seems to me that this House should
remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest
part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but
those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon
their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life…it is
little short of nauseating and disgusting to the whole sex….
Note
that this aligns with a principle I promulgated many years ago. It’s a sort of
a catch-22 called Duke’s First Rule of Women in Politics:
You
can’t find good traditional women in office because good traditional women
won’t be in office. They’re at home taking care of children.
This
is so universally true that if there is an exception, she’s the one proving the
rule.
So
why are women empowering leftists? As many have pointed out, including a female
writer whose name escapes me, “Women are natural-born socialists.”
This
is necessary within the family unit, which reflects very much a socialist model.
The children are provided for even if they create little or no wealth, as it’s
“From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” The
governed, the children again, also have no power; they don’t get to vote. They
in addition require, especially when young, a “nanny state” to micromanage
their lives — to dress them properly; ensure they brush their teeth, exercise
manners, eat healthful food, etc. Most women tend to this beautifully. Is
it coincidence that “nanny state” is a feminine characterization?
This
mentality is disastrous when applied to the wider society, however. What mature
citizen wants to be treated as a child by an actual nanny state?
Yet
it’s no surprise that those whose DNA prescribes a (required in the home)
nanny-state mentality would empower statists. An aspect of this is that, as Iexplained in
2011, women are “The Security Sex.” In brief, women are more risk-averse and
crave security, for themselves and their children, which is why they’re
generally attracted to strong, competent, successful men. Yet insofar as they
don’t find this in a man, they look to the state in a vain attempt to achieve
this security. This is the main reason why married women vote more
conservatively than single women; it’s also one reason why leftists attack
marriage.
Principle vs. Preference
John
Stuart Mill once wrote, “I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would
not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man.” A successful civilization
is one of laws, not men; it elevates principle above preference, adhering to
principles such as due process, “innocent until proven guilty,” constitutional
adherence, etc., even when doing so sometimes displeases the mob (e.g., the
Kavanaugh hearings).
Thus
is it instructive to note that, roughly speaking, men are creatures of
principle, women of preference. Years ago a female writer (whose name also
escapes me) discussed the different ways boys and girls settle problems. She
wrote that boys are natural-born deal makers; they’ll try to ensure fairness
for everyone and then shake hands, saying “Deal? Deal.” In contrast, girls will
try to ensure an outcome everyone feels good about.
Witnessed
here, even from young ages, is that boys instinctively reference principles,
the objective; fairness is a principle. The girls, of course, are referencing
feelings, the subjective.
Now,
being emotion-oriented is invaluable when interpreting the needs of infants,
who can’t communicate them verbally. Yet the two methods are not qualitatively
equivalent within a given context. Emotion is mercurial. Insofar as it
influences governance, its inconstancy does violence to the constancy the rule
of law requires. “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben
Franklin warned.
Interestingly,
it appears easy finding support for ending women’s suffrage — even among women
— as the below video evidences.
Of course, not understanding the term, the interviewees
above associated “suffrage” with “suffering.” While a comical mistake, some may
ask in light of recent events: Is the association really all wrong?
Photo
credit: majunznk
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on
to SelwynDuke.com
