Okay, so we all know that women can't be trusted with complicated and challenging tasks such as government leadership, scientific research, military service, and corporate management. (The reason we can be trusted with childrearing is that it's such a simple, basic, uncomplicated task and because Daddy will come home at the end of the workday to correct our mistakes.) But it seems we're just not bright enough to consider one incontestable truth, which is that we're too dumb and emotional to have been trusted with the right to vote in the first place.
From the beginning of time women have been the emotional nurturers of society while men have been the logical protectors and managers. It was the men who had to do the dirty deeds that required more logic then emotion. Men have always debated and discussed what it is they thought was best for their communities. There has always been strong women have stood behind their men and supported them in the tough decisions they had to make. Behind the scenes these strong women would prod and nudge because they thought the men moved to slow at times.
However it was that slow and methodical thought process that allowed for an orderly progression that worked for thousands of years. And please do not bring up all the wars men have gotten us into. The biggest war in history was WWII, and it happened with men elected after women around the world won the right to vote.
Unfortunately men eventually abdicated their God given responsibility and allowed their emotional partner an equal footing in deciding the country’s fate. From that day forward, men have been vying for the emotional vote of the women and worrying about their reactions after they got in office. Thus they have become more emotional in their legislating then logical.
Damn. I had no idea. But then, I'm not bright enough to be trusted with ideas anyway.
The author holds the women's vote responsible for such "feel-good" decisions as child safety-helmet laws, child-labor laws, World War II, efforts to offset the effects of global warming, and, one can assume, 9/11. These decisions were, of course, made by men, but it's still the women's fault! See, since women have gotten the vote, men have been forced to pander to them from a girly, emotional standpoint, and that means passing girly, emotional laws. Merely by passing the 19th Amendment, men have essentially castrated themselves by allowing women to castrate them, which I guess implied some castration beforehand, or else they wouldn't have allowed weak little emotional women to do it. So they pre-castrated and then re-castrated. Or something.
Anyhoodle, the reason given for why women should sit home and let the men make the decisions for them is that men are inherently logical. Women are driven by their emotions and tend to cry and pout and hold grudges and pass laws to protect cute things. Men, on the other hand, tend to logically shout and beat each other up over sporting events and start wars because someone threatened their deddy and pass laws to protect fetuses. Pay equity, ecology, and the feel-good preachings of Jesus? Gooshy women stuff. Witch-burning, the Spanish Inquisition, and killing Jesus? Manly man stuff for manly men.
What we need is a logical, manly-man president like Ronald Reagan! Now there's a man who threw aside all of that gooey emotional crap to campaign on a platform of hard facts and harder analysis.
Now, those are some hard-hitting violins!
Commenter Falconer made the point that author OneVike is looking to assign men the uber-logical role of Mr. Spock and women the uber-emotional role of Dr. McCoy. He points out that what that oversimplification lacks is a Captain Kirk to hang around as the synthesis of logic and emotion, ration and intuition.
I'll expand on that: Spock never started a war. Spock never got pissed off and beat someone up. And, to my knowledge, Dr. McCoy was never reduced to trembling tears on the floor of the infirmary and unable to do his job. Despite being driven by opposing motivations, they still manage to get the damn job done.
I've already expounded on the double standard for men and women where emotion is concerned. And that still stands. We accept the stereotypical testosterone-driven manly-man emotion because it's manly-man! It comes from men! And thus it must be right! Girly-girl emotion is not the same, and thus must be wrong. Such dichotomies ignore the fact that any excess of emotion such that it clouds one's judgment is a bad thing.
One more thought on the subject, and I don't know why I didn't just lead off with this: Men didn't get the vote because they were inherently logical or superior in their thought processes. They got the vote because it's a patriarchal society and they were in charge. They demanded the vote in the first place because they felt that they deserved some say in the runnings of the government that heavily influenced their lives.
Women don't deserve the vote--and take positions of leadership in government--because we're inherently superior. It's not because our attributed emotions and soft hearts make us more compassionate leaders. It's not because our social conditioning toward nonviolence makes us less likely to start a war. That's all stereotypes and bullshit. It's because our lives are heavily influenced by our government, and we deserve a say-so in how that happens, whether some stupid Freeper posting from his parents' basement and probably only knows what he thinks a woman would deserve if he ever were to meet one agrees or not.
God knows that if we handed out the right to vote based on rational decision-making capacity rather than citizenship, the voter rolls would be a hundred names long and most of them would own computer-repair shops in Michigan.
And for the record, I am a big fan of little kittens.