WOMEN AND GENGHIS KHAN
We do not stop Genghis Khan from his parasitism by moral demand, but by eliminating his ability to conduct parasitism. We do not stop women from their natural preening, consumption, nesting, parasitism, currying favor and status through redistribution, and undermining the power structure by engaging them in moral argument. They lack the agency to do so.
You simply create institutions that prohibit them from parasitism, currying favor and status through redistribution and undermining the power structure.
You deny people opportunity for rational parasitism, you don’t convince them not to engage in it.
WOMEN AND THE FRANCHISE
I take the opposite position: that we have merely given women the proxy of violence that we call government without providing the same disincentives to abusing it as women do, that we have created for men over thousands of years, as men do. Women do damage via different means than do men. Yet we did not limit their ability to do damage. So we can say our experiment in enfranchisement has failed, or we can improve our institutions such that the even more destructive intuitions of women cannot be let loose by the violence of government under the franchise.
(Eli has me thinking about solutions rather than criticisms)
0 responses to “Two Statements on Women.”
I find it hard to avoid a conclusion like this.
Not only do women vote in policies inimical to nations and try to make the state into their husband provider, they assume the powers of men without assuming the great risks and duties that men must assume.
The male life is high risk, high reward in a way protected females cannot understand and as such they do not learn restraint of power for lack of fear of the retribution that every man learns of as a small child.
A nation is doomed when non-powerful men are second class citizens in all but name. Who cares to risk their lives sustaining a social order that does not benefit them?
I would agree with that assessment.