“Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.
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 six 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. Egads!
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 supported Democrats 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.”
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 politician Viscount 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. Being detail oriented, 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 I explained 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.