Its no surprise that National Journal is running a painfully long and vapid article by one Jill Lawrence titled Do Women Make Better Senators Than sic Men?" Good traditional women are generally at home doing the things women have traditionally done to state the obvious. The women you find in the bare-knuckle world of politics are almost invariably cut from the feminist stone which is why so many have stone faces and stone hearts.
Every so often theres that obligatory article asking Are Women Superior at_____?" or Do Women Make Better ______?" with politicians often being the focus. Of course its always asked rhetorically. No matter the facts of the case youll never hear We examined the issue exhaustively from all perspectives consulted with premier authorities in the discipline collated the data and have determined that in this endeavor women to employ the official nomenclature really suck." In fact I havent heard any kind of dismissal of feminine abilities in any area of the kind routinely made with men since a 1993 Golf Magazine piece titled Women cant chip."
So its no surprise that National Journal is running a painfully long and vapid article by one Jill Lawrence titled Do Women Make Better Senators Than sic Men?" The answer is a foregone conclusion so you neednt imbibe Lawrences 4000-plus-word screed (I may pen a piece Do Women Make Wordier Journalists than Men?") which bears the self-revelatory subtitle They women make up one-fifth of the body the Senate. It doesnt look anything like parity (or America) but they believe they can do what the men cant namely get things done."
Now Ill address whats actually getting done" momentarily but first can we stop already with the looks like America" poseurs platitude? Heres a clue: the Senate aint never gonna look like merica pal. The tremendous resources it takes to wage political campaigns alone ensure we wont see John Q. Publics plumbers carpenters pipe fitters secretaries in higher (lower?) office. The truth? The media which definitely doesnt look like America only notices that legislatures or cabinets dont look like America when favored groups are ahem underrepresented." But do they ever notice the relative dearth of masons (as opposed to the many Freemasons) or even non-lawyers? And theres an idea: get those blasted legalistic mandate-metastasizing attorneys out of government whether they be male female or San Franciscan.
Getting back to Lawrences thesis she says that women exhibit more collaboration less confrontation; more problem-solving less ego; more consensus-building less partisanship. …And there is plenty of evidence in the form of deals made and bills passed that women know how to get things done." Im sure. With our government heck I think were all gonna get done good.
Lawrence writes that more women senators could mean less stasis" but what does government get done" exactly? Would less stasis mean the production of more cars TVs natural gas wheat or even Sandra Flukes favorite product? No active government produces more laws regulations and mandates which are virtually always removals of freedom and which hamper the private sector; it raises taxes and steals our money; and it engages in social engineering. Less stasis means more statism.
Lets be blunt: liberals will say that women have more political sense for a simple reason.
Women are more liberal.
And some conservatives pay lip service to the idea partially because of how Cultural Affirmative Action causes them to view certain female politicians.
Its also because my conservative brethren buy into other myths such as the notion that women went big for Republicans in 2010. Actually they broke for Democrats 49-48 a much smaller margin than usual but still true to form.
Now Lawrence does acknowledge this in so many words writing The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending regulation and abortion rights…." But she treats the leftist agenda as the default yardstick crediting women senators with being instrumental in things such as expensive farm bills ObamaCare the Lilly Ledbetter Act the recent scamnesty bill and averting a government shutdown." Except for the last effort however I cant think of one triumph" she cites thats constitutional. And all make stasis seem seductive. Theyre the kinds of accomplishments that cause me to say well women cant chip.
Lawrence is fair to the not-fairer sex though writing that some men" are trying to make things work better"; these would be aspiring deal-makers in todays Senate" such as John McCain South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham New York Democrat Chuck Schumer Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker…."
And you put all those guys together and you still have Low T.
Transitioning to High E Lawrence emphasizes how some of the strongest bipartisan relationships are among the women themselves" (thats easy when your ideology is basically the same) and also reports The members have thrown showers for women who are getting married or adopting children. They socialize with their families at each others homes. They run together and discuss how to juggle a Senate career and the responsibility of raising young children." Yes its the Divine Secrets of the Tax-and-spend Sisterhood.
Look lets cut the (Ill be sexist) male bovine. Its well known by the less brainwashed that women are creatures of the flock; they dont like going against the group which is one reason I didnt think the women judging George Zimmerman would give us a hung jury (though I did predict an acquittal two days ago). And thank God this time 6 Collaborating Women did the job of 12 Angry Men. But theres another way of saying women are of the flock.
They are creatures of the collective.
And of collectivism.
(I explain part of why this is so here.)
Of course the common thread in all the Are Women Better?" articles is that women just must be morally superior to men.
Except uh for Lois Lerner.
And Janet Reno.
And Hillary Clinton.
And Elizabeth Fauxcahontas" Warren.
And Kathleen Sebelius.
And Susan Rice.
And the Zimmerman trial judge.
And and…you get the idea.
You see there is a point almost universally missed here: whatever the sexes characteristics in general male and female candidates must endure the same often corrupt crucible when seeking office. They must get down in the same mud. They must win the favor of and be elected by the same people who as the saying goes get the government they deserve." And who are these people? Women have long voted in greater numbers than men so whatever the shortcomings of politicians male or female the strongest wind beneath their wings is a feminine one. Maybe the question we should ask is: do men make better voters than women?
But I will answer Jill Lawrences question: No the men are better senators. This is because of Dukes First Rule of Female Politicians: as a rule you dont find good women in politics. Oh there are exceptions perhaps maybe I suppose. And there are good traditional women everywhere.
Just not in politics.
Good traditional women are generally at home doing the things women have traditionally done to state the obvious. The women you find in the bare-knuckle world of politics are almost invariably cut from the feminist stone which is why so many have stone faces and stone hearts and part of why to quote Lawrence again The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending regulation and abortion rights…."
Of course well only see more women in politics in the foreseeable future. Society will hail this as a victory but Ill just echo an earlier article of mine and say when women start doing what men have traditionally done yours is a civilization of the setting sun and sons. And when this is the case it will set on our daughters as well.