Friday, March 3, 2017

Gynocracy in Practice

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. The differences between males and females are stereotypical, and like most stereotypes, they're based on a grain of truth — in this case, a whole silo full of truth. Men and women don't think alike, as a rule. Brains are wired different, literally. And a long evolutionary history has led to a lot of differences, some overt, some more subtle. Everybody knows, for example, that women are physically weaker than men, and yes, I know that you have female friends who could beat the bejeezus out of me, but we're talking averages here, which is almost always the case when you're talking about human beings and the groups they fall into.

As a rule, men are good at fighting, and women aren't. The military history of the whole planet substantiates that. And, again yes, I've seen Mulan, and read both Monstrous Regiment and The Guns of the South.  Click on any of them you don't recognize. Point is, the soldier girls in them are anomalies, or outliers, who are not typical females, and they're surrounded by hundreds of regular-type males who are doing soldier work, because practically any male human being can perform as an infantryman if he's the right age for it, and almost no female human being can.

But here we're talking about a big difference that's more subtle — the ability to rule. Thing is, in human evolutionary history, the ladies seldom rule anything except children and, sometimes, younger women, and they've evolved to be good at that. Males, on the other hand, leave handling children to the women, and participate in rule of the tribe, clan, city-state, country, and empire. And they've evolved to be good at that. As Robert Lindsay would put it, women's knee-jerk ideas about how things ought to be run are completely impractical, and only women who have accepted the male set of ideas and rules and moral questions can usefully participate in political rule, as voters or as elected officials. A feminized political system is unstable and, frankly, suicidal. Just look at the ladies running Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

But human beings are never that simple in practice. You also have feminized male voters and politicians who might as well be women, from the way they think. A shining example of that is Baby-Face Trudeau, who is in the process of spreading Canada's legs for millions of Third-World thugs who aren't feminized at all. Pardon the metaphor. I seldom get that vulgar, but this is a situation that calls for it. And while I'm knocking Canada around, be aware that I'm aware that here in the US it's just about as bad, and Trump has heaps of girly-men trying to keep him from vetting any foreigner at all who wants to fly in and sign up for freebies. Women like feeding helpless things. It's in their genes. Oh, another prominent girly-man is Tim Kaine. Remember how he behaved in the VP debates? Interrupting Pence and getting in his face? He was behaving like a woman does to a guy who, she is confident, is too polite to knock her on her ass. That was safe, because Pence is probably the politest politician running loose today. But most of us would have knocked him on his ass.

And now, a piece from my favorite leftist, Robert Lindsay [link], which would make most modern leftists burst into tears of indignation. But Robert does his own thinking, bless his heart. He starts by answering a comment from a reader:

Female Rule Is Feminism In Power and Nothing More or Less
TJF: To Rob:
The West is under female rule..? Not sure if I understand, what are you labeling as female rule aside from some rules passed on college campuses regarding consent…?
Look! Female Rule is feminism! Female Rule occurs when feminists gain so much power that they can start imposing their rules and laws on society. Female Rule is Feminism in Power, period.
Female Rule is imposing rules and laws on society that are based on the rules and mores of women and against those of men. We have generally had Male Rule because male rules and mores at best are at least sensible, but they don’t lead to this World of Justice that women want and demand because life is messy, unfair and often cruel with no legal or societal repercussions for this nastiness.
The crazy Consent Rules came about because women are determined to stop date rape on campus. Thing is you cannot stop it. Date rape will go on. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is a horribly unfair thing. But men will just shrug and say life is imperfect and unfair. Yet women will try to create a Just World when there is no such thing and there probably cannot ever be such a thing.
Read the rest here:

Now, lest you misunderstand both Robert and me, remember that we're talking about male rules and mores. Women who accept and abide by them can rule very well if they have the other abilities of a ruler — I think of Thatcher and Indira Gandhi in our time, and Elizabeth I in the past. None of them had a feminist bone in her body, and clicked right into the male system and hierarchy. The scary thing about Hillary was that she explicitly said she was running as a woman, meaning that there'd be a female/feminist bias in her rule. Which means, of course, that she planned to wreck the country. An example of her incisive feminist thinking is here [link].

Robert has more to say, and the post quoted above is just the most recent. You should go to his site at
and scroll down to at least two more posts on the subject of male v. female rule. 

And, while you're at it, here's a thought-provoker from Kathy Schaidle [link].
Quibcgags: #1 is illustrated by Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア) versions of Julius Caesar and a Roman girl supporting him. The second is Ranma and Akane from Ranma ½ (らんま½). Number three is characters from Project A-ko (プロジェクトA子 Purojekuto Eeko). And I can't remember where I found the laughing girls in number four.

And let's finish up with something funny:

1 comment:

  1. "But human beings are never that simple in practice. You also have feminized male voters and politicians who might as well be women, from the way they think."

    You are arguing from a false premise--men who fail to adhere to your personal criteria as to what constitutes a man (or masculinity if you prefer) are other than men.

    What are the metrics involved here? How does one determine the extent that a man is indeed other than "manly" when it comes specifically to politics? Would not this criteria fall prey to confirmation bias and subjectivity?