Women in Charge

This from the Pioneer Press:

In 1998, Francis Fukuyama published a short article in Foreign Affairs called "Women and the Evolution of World Politics." He began with a gruesome tale of violence among male zoo chimpanzees ("toes and testicles littering the floor of the cage") and moved briskly into a sociobiological account of human conflict (men are naturally aggressive; women are nicer).

...In the developed world, there's more to cheer about. Because increased opportunity for women seems to translate into more prosperous and stable societies, what's not to like — unless you're Fukuyama — about a future in which the power elite may look more female than male?

Given the declining number of men seeking higher education, perhaps it will soon be women who dominate public life, while men — less educated and less productive — will be relegated to the sidelines.

...Will all those undereducated first-world men of the future go contentedly home to change diapers while their high-powered wives run the world? Or will they engage in still unimaginable forms of global mischief?

Fukuyama deserves credit for commenting on the difference in the sexes, that, though painfully obvious to anyone with eyes, yet irks those who choose not to use them. Just ask Larry Summers. Whether or not these differences are due to nature or nurture is irrelevant; it is enough to know that they exist. I will grant that men are more aggressive than women--or at least those who have not been drugged into a stupor for having ADD, which is now apparently transmissible by air, judging from its pervasiveness. But women have a weakness of their very own, which the author of the article--Rosa Brooks, not Fukuyama--fails to mention.

Women prefer safety and security over liberty, and will readily grant power to the government to protect them, and especially their children, from the evils which freedom brings. This is nothing more than the maternal instinct on display, and fifty years ago the love a mother had for her child was still generally considered beneficent. We're more enlightened now, thank goodness, and sensible women now go to work. Even so, the maternal instinct still remains, as evidenced by the propensity for women to vote for the party which espouses big(ger) government. It was for this reason that John Adams warned us of the "tyranny of the petticoat". The extension of the suffrage to women, however nobly intended, has brought irreparable consequences, and has rendered the collapse into totalitarianism inevitable. It is uncouth to suggest that the virtues of wisdom and prudence fall unevenly about the masses, but it is also readily apparent. And while there are many women who can vote more intelligently than men--this in my subjective estimation of course--the vast majority of women will vote to expand the power of the federal government, expansion which invariably comes at the expense of personal liberty.

Notes Fred Reed:

Men have controlled the world through most of history so we know what they do: build things, break things, invent things, compete with each other fiercely and often pointlessly, and fight endless wars that seem to them justifiable at the time but that, seen from afar, are just what males do. The unanswered question is what women would, or will, do. How will their increasing influence reshape the polity?

Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness.

I do not suggest that the instinctive behavior of women is necessarily bad, nor that of men necessarily good. I do suggest that that the effects will be profound, probably irreversible, and not necessarily entirely to the liking of either sex. The question may be whether one fears most being conquered or being nicened to death.

Brooks is guilty of tremendous naiveté. Fred makes no such mistake, pulling no punches. Humans, given half a chance, will do their darnedest to disappoint anyone faulted with sanguine expectations. History, which is mostly dominated by men, is a blood bath. Occasionally someone got people to behave sensibly for a while, but as soon as the sage croaked, his teaching forgotten--sorry, most sages were men--the other fellows got back to butchering each other. Such is life.

It's less clear what a modern matriarchy would look like, but it's comical to assume that if women do succeed in taking the jobs of men, we need to worry about the guy back home. The guys will, being guys, break things and set other stuff, some of it broken, on fire. They will also play video games and drink beer. It is power which corrupts; the extent of the corruption among house dads will be resigned to mythical realms of pixelated peasants. I'm not worried about the house dads.

It's still unclear to me why women are going to do a substantially better job than men. Certainly, the track record of men has been less than exemplary, but as Fred notes, it's a matter of being conquered of nicened to death. Things will still be generally unpleasant; at least with the fellows we have some evidence--say thousands of years worth--of the particular flavor of unpleasantness patriarchy often brings. There is something to be said for the preference to that which is known, but maybe people like surprises better than I do.

The other curiosity is her avoidance of birth rates, which continue to fall in the western world. She does mention infanticide, which, strangely, is problematic, not because it destroys progeny, but because preferential treatment for boys leads to massive inequalities in the number of men and women later in life, furthering the dominance of men. Agreed, but since women have a monopoly on wombs, it has always seemed natural to me that women should stay home to raise the children and the men, being fairly useless in the compassion department, ought to go to work to bring home the bacon. In their efforts to shed the shackles of motherhood, women have eagerly took up the shackles of the corporate world. Thanks to the pill, women don't have to have children, and they are now generally as useless as men, at least from a standpoint of species propagation.

Letting the ladies run things around the office and in the government might be good for man, err, personkind--though this is still less than sure. Do diversity seminars benefit anyone? Is a cantankerous white man more likely to make attendance mandatory than a liberated woman? Do taxes seem more pleasant if the stamp on the envelop with the check has a smiley face on it? Hypothetical circumstances aside, the point remains that women who work have fewer children. If enough women refrain from having kids, society will eventually die out. I'm unclear as to how this can be a good thing, even if the work place is nicer and government imposes with a smile.

Things could get interesting. Over in Europe, certain countries dole out money for couples who have children, with more money coming with each subsequent child. As yet, the rewards aren't working. Birth rates in America are still at replacement level, and immigrants, illegal and otherwise, also contribute to the growth of the republic, not only by coming here, but by having children themselves, as immigrants, illegal and otherwise, have more children than do the natives. Still, we have a way of following the odd behavior of our ancestors across the pond. One wonders what a woman president and a female controlled congress would do, faced with such a crisis. Would they order women to have children--by asking nicely of course, and sweetening the deal with monetary compensation--or continue to strike a blow to the dwindling patriarchy by taking no action at all? We'll find out soon enough.

Meanwhile, I'll be burning and breaking things.