Pam Spaulding at Pandagon reviews a conservative debate about how giving us emotional wimmins the right to vote alongside inherently logical men ruined America. Men are logical? Coulda fooled me.
The progenitor of this particular brand of crazy roots this theory — as all "good" theories on the supposedly innate differences between men women are rooted — in evolution (not that he likely believes in evolution).
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.
The Crusades? Even better. God loved the Inquisition and the witch-burnings definitely protected early American colonists from their evil ways. All wonderfully logical events in world history in which men logically debated what was best for their communities and acted accordingly without emotion. And let's not forget killing Jesus, which — if you take the Bible at face value — was totally a logical decision over releasing the mass murderer guy.
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.
Yes, let us ignore all the other wars ever in the history of the world and World War II was totally the fault of the vagina patrol. That's the kind of logic you poor, emotional wimmins would never understand because it's logic, yo, so just smile and nod like a woman is supposed to.
The crux of his argument, naturally, is this bit of insanity:
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.
You know, by giving half the country an equal say it its democracy — the purpose of which is to allow the government to represent the will of its people (of which women are half) — politicians were then forced then spent all their time angling for women's support by appealing to their emotions and not strictly to their reason or common sense the way they used to when only men could vote. Which is why we should rescind women's right to vote, so that the government can take policy positions and act only on the basis of logic.
REMEMBER THE MAINE!!