Regular readers will know I have a strong, even pathological, anti-femite streak. It’s perhaps ironic, as many of my readers are women, and I actually find most women quite charming and pleasant company. That said, I can’t ignore how terrible things tend to go when women are in charge of anything more substantial than the local church bake sale or the PTA.
With the notable exceptions—and I have to mention them because women in particular don’t seem to understand the concept of “generalization“—women are not really suited for politics, governance, management, etc. What they do really well, however, is act as the social glue that binds a community together. Again, if you want your church bake sale to be a success or your PTA to hound delusional administrators, women are your best option.
If you want to direct grand strategy and pursue a sane domestic policy, leave it to the men. Women in politics seem to boil down to “kill babies, give me free stuff!” It was Republican women in South Carolina, for example, who blocked a total abortion ban in my State; all three of them were booted from the South Carolina Senate in their primary elections, leaving our State Senate blessedly free of female meddling.
Lately there’s been some hubbub over J.D. Vance’s past comments about women, particularly his claim that our country is being run by “childless cat ladies” and the “childless Left.” National Review, the bastion of fake conservative handwringers, fumed simpishly over Vance’s comments, while not exactly addressing the substance of what he said. After all, Vance said the unpopular part out loud—the cat ladies “are miserable in their own lives and the choices they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”
Here’s Vance on Tucker Carlson Tonight when Vance was running for his Ohio Senate seat (and when Tucker was still on Fox News):
I don’t have children. It definitely makes me less invested in the world. Granted, I stay pretty involved in local politics and in my community. I’d probably be a much more serious person (and not writing reckless blog posts) if I had a wife and kids.
I’m at least relatively sane. Take a single, childless woman over thirty with daddy issues and tell her the government will be her husband, and you have a recipe for a nation full of cat litter and devoid of litters of human babies.
If you want an idea of what kind of people we’re dealing with here, watch the first minute or so of this video—or just look at the thumbnail image:
These people are hilariously clueless. At least, it would be funny if they weren’t voting.
J.D. Vance was right. Maybe it’s time to revisit the 19th Amendment.
The Portly Politico 
I’m actually offended by this. You say you have no qualms with me, yet I am a childless person with a cat. Do you like me because I keep out of politics?
Somehow I don’t think you do. Not really. You must be lying to yourself and to others regarding what you feel about women. Secretly you must hope that I’ll stop wearing men’s clothes, let my hair grow and that I’ll finally someday date, marry and become a mother to human babies, even though I’m far too old to even consider becoming pregnant for natural reasons.
I think you need to take a good hard look at yourself and think how others must feel like when you describe that women are not suitable for this and that, unless it involves classic woman shit.
I cannot bake. I’m a bad cook. Even though I can write, I suck at going after people in the way you described. I would not be a doctor, lawyer or go in to politics, because I know myself. It has nothing to do with me being born a woman.
Still, I would never, ever be able to work in a typical female setting. This makes me so frickin’ sad to read what you actually think of women. I do not identify as one, but I’m a biological one. Not that it makes me that different, but yeah.
I’m disappointed. Hugely disappointed in you for reading this.
I just wanted you to know that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet, I don’t care that you’re disappointed; it kind of proves my point. I apologize for nothing.
That said, you’re free to live your life however you want. I don’t want to change you; I’d just rather not have women who view the government as their husband voting or calling the shots.
Keep living your life as you see fit. But, again, the record speaks for itself: women in the electoral process have been a net negative for Western societies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In what way do women see the government as their husband? Now I’m not American, so I don’t know what it’s like to be born and live there, but I certainly do NOT see the government as my husband. Why the frick would I?! I’m single. And even if I had a boyfriend or a husband, my husband is my husband, right?
I might be very literal in that sense, but I don’t understand what you mean by that.
Women and men want to live their life as they choose. Voting is important to tell the government what we want in need in order for our lives to be the best – for all! That’s democracy, right?
Women especially would like the opportunity to choose whether or not to have children, since we are the ones carrying the babies to term. I would like to keep feeling free, and not be forced to do whatever men decide for me.
We live in 2024. It seems you’d rather have a society where women are oppressed and forced to do what you decide for them.
In that sense it seems more like YOU see the government as your wife, since YOU like to decide what women do or do not do with their lives.
I am not planning to start world war 3 here, so I’ve said what I planned.
Nice to know that you don’t care.
Not about me, not about others but only about yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, I don’t care what you do or do not do with your life. And, let’s be real, I’m one guy; what difference do I make? There is nothing I can do to change your life or the lives of American women, nor can I deprive anyone of their rights—nor do I want to!
All I’m pointing out is that, over the last century, women’s presence in politics and government have been largely detrimental.
The government might not be your literal husband, but let’s be real: based on your own writings, you’re a net drain on the Swedish economy. I don’t say that to be cruel, but to point out that there are likely tens of thousands of women (and men) deriving from the state the benefits that would normally come from a husband: housing, food, etc.
At the same time, single women tend to promote policies that are soft-hearted but short-sighted, such as importing millions of migrants from the Third World and then acting surprised when rpe and sexual assault shoot sky high. I still can’t believe there are women in Germany and Sweden who *apologize to the migrants after the migrants have rped *them!
Again, I have no power or desire to prevent any woman from voting. I’m just offering a diagnosis. Live your life and enjoy it. I appreciate that you are trying to find work and want to love a safe, comfortable life. That’s a beautiful dream and goal.
I wish you the best, AM. Sincerely. But I can’t ignore that, in general, women become a drain on society and social and political stability in modern times under present conditions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess I have to turn in my ‘you go, girl’ card because I agree with you. I never want to see a female president of the United States. One has only to look at the D Party … shudder. But the R Party doesn’t have any women I’d vote for, either. Congress – fine. Senate – fine. Nothing more than that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Audre. I mean, we’ll get a female President eventually (just hopefully not in 2025); it’s just a matter of time. But it’s not something to be celebrated in and of itself.
I’m sure there is some woman capable of the job, but she would very much be the exception to the rule. I suspect there are many women who will get the job, but shouldn’t.
As I noted to AM, I am just one man. I am not trying to change anything or anyone, I am just diagnosing the problem. Women have many spheres for improving society; in politics, however, they generally muck things up.
I think it’s telling that my more senior female readers acknowledge this fact.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know who would have been a good president??? Condo Rice; she was a remarkable woman in man’s job and doing it well and honorably.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure! And, again, I’m not saying “all women” are unfit for politics, just most are. For every Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice, you have hundreds of thousands of Kamalas and Clintons.
Nikki Haley was a great governor of SC, and I voted for her twice. She’d be an awful President.
I’d wager that, if you could assure women their basic rights would not be violated and that they could continue to live their lives as they wished, most of them wouldn’t care if they couldn’t vote. If you could guarantee a good husband earning a living wage, most of them would probably quit their miserable jobs, too.
That might be wishful thinking on my part, though. Still, looking at how married women vote versus single women, the result is startling—married women are FAR more conservative than single women of the same age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh man, I am so with you on this. I wrote almost the same thing a few years back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dang, how did I miss that post?! I’m finding it fascinating how many women are onboard with this idea.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It was written a few years ago when there was very little engagement, so likely before our paths crossed.
I think the “strong woman” trope has infiltrated and infected so many areas and women are denying their inborn nature, which is causing all kinds of problems, including men becoming simps and pushovers.
I would love to return to a society where the man discusses options with his wife and his singular vote represents the best interests of the family. Perhaps controversial, but if a women wants her voice heard in the political sphere, she needs to be pleasant and sane enough to secure marriage to a man who trusts her judgement.
The crazy cat ladies, and the women who carry around lifelike ReBorn baby dolls, and the girls who have intercourse with their dogs don’t represent me. Frankly, I don’t want them having any say in what goes on in the world, and I would gladly give up my voting rights to ensure that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“[A]nd the girls who have intercourse with their dogs.” I am dying, but I strongly suspect that’s one reason so many women adopt these incredibly aggressive breeds, like pit bulls (that or they have this weird concept that pit bulls are like the black guys of dogs, and they think they can control this ferocious beast because breeds don’t exist or something; either way, it’s totally unhinged—and weirdly racist).
I totally agree re: the family vote. I think owning property is another important qualification, but I would say being married is an even more important indication of a sound mind and investment in the future. I write that as a single, never-married man!
I’ve had some very conservative girlfriends who balked at giving up any of their “rights” (which, remember, women would not have without men), even if everything else in their lives stayed the same (and, indeed, even if it meant sane politicians and policies). There’s a deep selfishness that this grrrrrrrl boss phenomenon has implanted even into the most conservative and traditional women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if you’re familiar with 4chan, but Dr. Zeus goes there for the news not reported elsewhere. It scared because he mentions that guys on the forum will articles of women being arrested for posting videos of the act to TikTok. WTF. It’s a very real phenomenon. I had a roommate when I met Dr. Zeus and he suspected something was going on there–the dog seemed to fill both the role of “boyfriend/companion” and child, which I found bizarre.
I think very people people–especially women–have the capacity to zoom out and consider what is best for their country, the world, and their posterity. Even those with children often fail to recognize how societal trends are setting up their children and beyond for failure. The Century of the Self destroyed us. It really is sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve heard whispers in the back corners of the Internet that such abominations occur, but I’ve never looked into it (for obvious reasons), but I totally believe it. It tracks, bizarrely, with the trend of female teachers sleeping with their underaged male students. That is very well-documented.
We have definitely been on a bender of selfishness. When AM argued I was being selfish in my analysis, I had to take stock. I don’t think I am, but because of my own painful dating history, I certainly am more likely to see these trends. I think if I were in a happy marriage I’d have a harder time seeing the damage that’s been done. I suspect that is true for a lot of men and women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely brilliant post. You really pinpoint the issue—the manipulation of women’s empathy through feel-good narratives. It explains much for why our politics have become so emotional and watered-down. That also means less substantial and sustainable policy, and lots of short-sighted decision making that feels good in the moment, but bankrupts the nation morally and economically.
A restoration of gender roles is necessary, but it won’t come easily. I’m afraid it’s going to require something truly cataclysmic to reset us to our natural state of being. If women suddenly had to deal with mass famine, for example, all those grrrrrrrrl bosses would be turning to men real quick.
Even in less dire circumstances, women instinctively turn to a man to solve her problems. Tree fell on your house? Call a man. Can’t reach something on a high shelf? Get a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bingo! Just because women have a high-paying job in a male-dominant field and are comfortable leaving their children (if they have any) in the care of a stranger, it doesn’t mean they could survive on their own under more divisive circumstances. There’s no self-reflection. It’s mind-boggling. I’m successful in life, but I will never claim “I don’t need no man!” because I don’t want to try to shoo the bat out of the house, clean up the dog’s shit, or negotiate a lower price. I want a man to lead me and it feels like such a primal need that I’m perplex by how easily some women seem to be able to suppress it. Though, perhaps that’s why women generally have so much pent up anger…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll return your “Bingo!” with one of my own: women suppressing that desire to be led and to be provided for is surely a source of their ennui and anger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get where you’re coming from but I should say that in the last 25 years, men haven’t covered themselves in glory either. There are some good women in politics in your country, some not so – cat lady extraordinaire AOC comes to mind – but there are an awful lot of blokes who could do with some pointers in common sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read Esoterica/Erin’s post linked in her comment (or here: https://existentialergonomics.com/2022/09/02/the-19th-amendment-was-a-mistake/); she addresses the slide in masculinity as well. I don’t disagree with your point, but I think the lack of men stepping up is a symptom of the deeper disease of radical feminism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read it and I disagree with it.
Being an idealist, as well as a traditional social conservative, I think we need balance not dominance. Without balance, of opinion, of decisions, of action, the scales tip too far and nothing good ever comes from it. Can we honestly say that things were better in your country, in ours before women got involved in politics?
I know where you’re coming from regarding the feminisation of men but in my ideal world, that wouldn’t have happened. Men and women would bring their best ideas to the table, they wouldn’t constantly nitpick at each other’s sex as a weapon and there’d be some superb debate, the resultant actions bringing balance and order to society.
That’s been one of the main issues of the modern world. We have people in power too keen to divide us up into categories, highlighting which of us is more in need and putting the rest out to grass. That is not the result of either gender, that is the result of socialist whackjobs from both genders who have their own agendas.
If we had a reset, the best that could come from the other side is common sense politics. Colour blind, gender blind and just getting on with making your nation work for everyone, with no hierarchy of identity. No promotion of LGBTQ, no faith replacement in Christian countries but a system that isn’t obsessed with colour of skin or what’s hanging, or not, between your legs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the central problem with what you are imagining is the very idealism at the heart of it. It simply does not work in the current circumstances.
I agree, I think we need a balance that recognizes the complementarity of both sexes., and that recognizes the distinct equally important contributions of men and women.
As I have noted, and is noted in her peace, repealing the 19th amendment is a political pipe dream. It will not happen. That said, part of the discussion of rebalancing is clearly off-kilter involves recognizing the damage that women’s suffrage has wrought.
I do think you make a good point, though: we do not what dominance of one gender over the other. Unfortunately, right now we have exactly that, with the feminine dominating the masculine in our institutions and our governments.
There will always be the exceptions, but I think the healthiest way to balance the interest of both men and women, and into guarantee the maximum possible happiness for both sexes, is for a male-dominated political apparatus to exist. That does not mean that women could not play some rules in that system, but those women would necessarily and, quite frankly, biologically, the exemption.
Consider Queen Elizabeth I. She was doubtlessly one of the most important political figures of her time. She is largely responsible for shaping England into the country. It was until relatively recently. She was an outlier, but beyond that, she existed within a political apparatus that was almost entirely dominated and administered by men. She was a remarkable woman who managed to get the most possible out of that apparatus, and no doubt she used some of the qualities unique to women to achieve her political goals. But she also exercised her power and authority in a masculine way with a masculine system.
Would she have been as successful and she blithely believed that all women were as a depth at statecraft as she? I highly doubt it. Very likely England would have evolved into a tumultuous round of bickering within the Elizabethan court.
Again, I admired your vision for what the world should be. I do think we should treat individuals as such, and we should not have politics based on identity. However, there are clear, biological differences between men and women, differences which manifest themselves in many subtle and diverse, but broadly identifiable, ways. Again, for every queen Elizabeth or Margaret Thatcher, you have thousands of department store Karena and human resource czarinas, each dragging everyone else down like crabs in the proverbial bucket.
I appreciate that our personal experiences with women are substantially different. I think you scored a queen Elizabeth of your own. The sad reality, and it is one that is hard to grass unless you have lifted, is that most men, self included, have very much experienced the opposite. We are the ones ending up with the HR czarinas. Has that colored my analysis? Absolutely. Do I want to disenfranchise women or strip them off basic rights because of that? Absolutely not. Even if I did, I do not have the power to do so. Pretty much the only thing I want to prevent women from doing is having abortions, because that is straight up infanticide.
Of course, in a healthy, masculine society, women would be able to express their femininity in healthy, non-destructive ways. I do not think government or politics is the way to achieve that. Indeed, I think we have to fix the gender imbalance before we can fix politics at a deeper level. if we don’t, there will come a day when men who do have the means, and the power will restore things to a place we do not want to be; that is to a place where women truly are oppressed.
I wish we could live in the world you posit, Ponty, but I don’t think such a world exists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ironically, you’ve just pointed out why a male dominated political scene wouldn’t work either; to quote your good self, ‘women would be able to express their femininity in healthy non destructive ways.’ When men were men and women were women, do you think we had order? We spent centuries at war with each other, at the cost of so many lives, I couldn’t tell you.
Once America gained its independence from Britain – thanks, mad George (🙈) – it warred with the indigenous and then each other before it became what you see now. Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Well, there’s a lot of crime but at least you have a semblance of freedom and democracy.
Your ideal doesn’t work either and even if the 19th was quashed, what would you have? A mish mash of petty, feminised and power hungry men continuing to ignore your interests and taking the country apart.
What’s done is done. All we can do is hope to elect the right people, keep fighting the good fight and hope things come together the way they should.
I upticked your post because you make some good points but by and large, I still disagree with it. Which isn’t a bad thing. We can’t agree on everything. 😉
By the way, were you talking about QE1 or 2? I know you said 1 but our second Elizabeth had much to be admired. Many think she was our best queen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not promising perfection; I am just hoping for normality. I do not like war, but for better for worse, that is the natural way of things. There have been always will be wars, until Christ Returns.
What is unnatural is for women to behave like men, and vice versa. We will always have problems, regardless of who is in charge, but the magnitude of those problems would not be so great if we had maintained the natural order in our culture in our political system.
I do think you make a good point that, at this moment, we would just have a bunch of feminized men running things if we somehow magically booted all women out of politics. That is why I think it is going to take some sort of cataclysmic collapse to reset things to their natural order, because we have allowed ourselves to become so unnatural, the only way back is through harsh Reality.
I was referring to QE1, who actually had power she could wield. QE2 had a great deal of soft power, and actually worked quite well in her role as the symbolic mother of the nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And on that note, I bid you goodnight. Tina is already purring beside me and I can sense a venture into the Land of Nod.
Enjoy your evening, mate. We must do this again though. I enjoy a good and lively debate. Maybe capital punishment next? I know a good amount of Americans and, surprisingly, Christians, appear to favour it – you won’t be surprised to read I’m against it and always will be.
Cheerio, for now. 👍💤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sleep tight, my friend.
LikeLike
P.S.—I agree: it is good to have disagreements and to discuss these things. You have given me a lot of good points to consider. And, again, as I keep stressing: I have absolutely zero power to make any of these changes. If I were suddenly dictator of America, I don’t know that I would necessarily make these changes, because doing so would be quite chaotic. But I do think it is worth considering how far we have strayed from our intended roles and design.
I also want to read that I am not announcing anyone in particular, or woman’s choice of career. I do think there is that small, 5% or so of women who are not going to be satisfied as homemakers and mothers. I also acknowledge there are bad and abusive men. But again, I think these are largely the exceptions rather than rule. I would wager that the vast majority of women would be far happier if they could stay at home and raise their children rather than schlepping off to some soul-crushing job. Indeed, women would have the better end of it: the men would be schlepping off to do all of those soul-crushing jobs! Besides, we are more used to having our spirits crushed, ha ha. But we can endure it better when we have a good woman to come home to who will not chide us for failing to vote for Kamala Harris. 😂😂😂
LikeLiked by 2 people