We are all so very lucky to have Lawrence Auster ensconced in his Manhattan apartment, devoting his considerable intellect to diagnosing the myriad ills of Western society.
Today, he wrote this:
“Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues including matters of national security? Or is it a sign -- and a cause -- of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?
“There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights... inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today’s Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. ...
“Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism. Once women have the vote, there is, over time, a growing tendency for women to stop seeing their fathers and husbands as the primary providers of security, and to see the state in that role instead. This tendency encourages -- and in turn is greatly exacerbated by -- the increase in unmarried motherhood.”
You know what? I’ve always had a feeling that that’s exactly when America started to turn to shit: when women got the right to vote. Continue, Mr. Auster, continue.
“... If women’s vote leads a society in the direction of socialist statism, the weakening of marriage and the family, the loss of male responsibility, loss of basic freedoms (which only men are physically and temperamentally suited to defend), loss of national vigor, then does that not suggest that it was a mistake for the West to give women the vote?”
“Then there is the direct effect of women in leadership positions. I believe that with rare exceptions such as a Margaret Thatcher or a Golda Meir, women are not well suited for upholding the basic external structure of society. That is preeminently a male, not a female task. To me, the female-dominated politics of the Scandinavian countries do not represent a positive and uplifting direction for the human race.”
Yeah! Fuck them bitches!
“I do not have an agenda to take away women’s political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed” – (Wait, don’t go limp on us now, Larry! Don’t lose your vigor!) – “... However, among the other aspects of modern culture and politics that traditionalists freely question, we need to question whether women’s political equality is on balance a good thing for society. There are reasonable grounds for concluding that it is not.”
Damn straight. You know the first thing women did to ruin Western civilization, by applying their tender-hearted sensibilities to the realm of public policy? They agitated against slavery! And we all know what that led to.
(Don’t feel too bad about all those white women being raped by blacks, Mr. Auster. Their presumptuous foremothers brought it upon them.)
Why, just listen to what Frederick Douglass said in 1881 in support of women’s political rights. Douglass was proud to be known as a “woman’s rights man.” (Then again, he was probably a homo.)
Keep doing what you do, Lawrence Auster. There are plenty of us out here paying close attention to whatever you write.
UPDATE (07/09/07): Okay, I had my fun. But the fact is, Auster is not the only right-winger bemoaning the deleterious influence of women (as women) on Western politics and governance lately.
Pat Buchanan, on “The McLaughlin Group” the other night, made the same point about Scandinavian legislatures, equating the rise of women’s political power with runaway socialism.
And economist John Lott, author of the book “Freedomnomics,” said in a recent interview that women’s suffrage in the United States led to the massive growth of government bureaucracies.
“I think that women are generally more risk averse than men are and they see government as one way of providing insurance against life’s vagaries,” Lott said. “I also think that divorced women with kids particularly turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a third of the growth in government for about 45 years.”
Still, I had no idea that there were intelligent folks out there who believe it was a mistake ever to have allowed women to vote. But check out Lawrence Auster’s online amen corner...
Commenter James M. wrote: “Part of the reason that I am so certain that the wheels will soon come off this country is women’s suffrage. None of the socialist schemes of the left in the 20th century would have passed without it. None of the issues that face the West will be solved politically as long as security-conscious women have the right to vote.”
Even a woman – Rachael S. – voiced agreement: “I have said on more than one occasion that I would happily give up the vote to return to ‘what we had,’ a more traditional society with gender roles, single-income families, women in the home, etc. And you do make a good point about female concerns warping a country’s politics if given too much sway, or any sway at all...”
That’s what I like about this job. You learn stuff.
UPDATE (07/10/07): You guys must check out the discussion percolating on this thread at Auster’s blog. It is... amazing.
Commenter Zachary W.: “[I]f it’s suicidal to give political power to races that are incapable of building higher civilizations themselves, then a similar argument must be made with respect to women, who have historically (and pre-historically) never played an active role in the running, organizing, or defending thereof, and are not designed to do so.”
Mr. Auster also expands (as he is wont to do) on his original arguments: “[A]ssuming for the sake of discussion that we agree that it is better for society that women not have political rights (which is not yet a position I am fully committed to, though I am lean [sic] in that direction), if such a re-traditionalized society were to maintain itself, everyone, men and women, would need to understand the importance of the differentiation of women’s and men’s roles in society.”
I wonder where such a project – the disfranchisement of women – would rank on Larry Auster’s personal wish list? Probably just below banning the Muslim religion. And right above the chemical castration of Negroes.