Monday, February 8, 2016

There's A Special Place in Hell for the Presumptuous

To Madeleine Albright and all the other feminists who demand I vote for Hillary Clinton because The Wimmins, I have only this to say:

I'm not going to jettison everything I stand for and vote for a corrupt political dynasty just because its standard-bearer has a matching set of genitalia. And my sisters on the left who are voting for Bernie Sanders shouldn't exchange principles for cheap symbolism either, even if I personally think Bernie's "platform" is as realistic as a plan to fund our federal government with rainbows and unicorn farts.

Oh, yes, I did say "cheap symbolism" -- because it is. We don't actually "need" a female president. There's nothing in the female psyche that confers magical leadership powers on those who possess it. And before you even start with the myths, no: Women are not "more peaceful" and "more compassionate." What bizarre schools did you go to when you were a girl? We can be just as bloodthirsty and just as cruel as any man. Please -- go and read some actual history. Violence and injustice didn't disappear in a puff of smoke any time a women was in charge. For an instructive example, see Mary I of England.

But we need The Wimmins to secure our rights! And what rights would those be? Because the rights that actually matter are rights that a Democratic administration under Clinton would almost certainly seek to squash. The right to life -- even if it is "inconvenient"? The right to practice my religion in public as I see fit without interference from the federal government? The right to speak my mind even if my thoughts don't fit the elite orthodoxy of the moment? The right to defend myself using any method I choose -- including, if necessary, deadly force via high-velocity lead? Whither will these go under left-wing governance? And while we're at it, let's consider the universally applauded gains won by earlier feminist movements -- like, for example, the franchise. Did we need The Wimmins in charge to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment? I'll give you one guess.

But we're not at parity! So? That is something we will never achieve so long as the meritocracy remains robust and we're all left free to make our own choices. Women may not be infused with Mystic Leadership Juice, but in other ways, we are fundamentally different from men in the aggregate. For example, we have less upper body strength, which means we are less likely to qualify as soldiers or firefighters, where rigid standards for said strength are a matter of life and death. We also have different interests and different priorities, which means we tend to choose different college majors and more flexible career paths. And no -- these divergences are not simply the result of cultural conditioning, as anyone with experience with very small children will confirm. But hell -- even if they were 100% the fault of culture, culture is not something the government is competent to fix

But really, let's turn this around for a second: Suppose, by some miracle, Carly Fiorina surged in the GOP's polls and subsequently seized our party's nomination. How would you, my dear Clinton supporters, respond if I demanded you vote for Fiorina because The Wimmins and Historic Milestone? You'd reject the argument, of course, because Fiorina does not share your beliefs! Why, then, do you expect women on our side - or Bernie's female backers, for that matter - to act any differently?

No: I will not be checking under the hood before I make my vote -- and quite frankly, I'm insulted that you would suggest such a thing. To steal from a Facebook friend of mine, I am not a vagina with feet. 


  1. "Bloody Mary" was actually far less bloodthirsty than the schools claim - she did her fair share of killing heretics, but Queen Elizabeth "the great" was a much...much bigger murderer. :) Otherwise, agrees. :D

  2. Very well said. We should be voting based on a candidate's abilities, beliefs, integrity, etc. Not on what body parts they may or may not have.