As I’m informed it’sNational Offend a Feminist Week, I’d be derelict in my blogging duties if I didn’t take the opportunity to express a few thoughts.
Today’s sermon… er, blog post… takes its text – I mean.. – well anyway. Look at this video
The girl goes on TV to lecture people on how saying “illegal immigrant” is racist (WTF?!), and she hasn’t even figured out whether she approves of open borders. She whines about “dehumanizing” immmigrants, how illegal immigrants are parts of families and “deserve rights,” and how “our laws need to get modern” – but she has no idea what that means, or how to articulate it as a consistent rule-based policy, never mind what the implications of that policy might be.
While many women aren’t quite this stupid, this girl’s “thinking” is absolutely typical of feminine “thought.” The female mind is optimized to make the family work (which is, of course, a fantastically important role, and unfairly denigrated by feminists who only value “having a career”). She wants to “kiss it make it better” but has no conception of law, of logic, of consistency, of justice, or of long term thinking in general. What works for the family right now is completely different from what will work to build a state to endure for centuries. Women do the former, men do the latter.
Therefore women should not vote, as their nature causes them always to be voting for “some scheme apparently calculated to benefit the populace for the moment, but perfectly sure to ruin everyone at the end.” [Polybius] As Schopenhauer explained
It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote.
Women’s inability to think about the logical implications of policies and in particular their future implications is mirrored by their incapacity to understand the past. A woman with a serious and broad knowledge of history (neither “colonial and post-colonial studies” nor a narrowly specialized academic history degree qualifies) is almost a miracle. As Cicero observed, those who are ignorant of history remain forever children. Why are we giving children a say in the governance of the country?