The ‘Votes For Women’ Experiment: Why It Isn’t Working

I have a confession to make. I am slightly aroused by the concept of a woman casting her vote. Playfully, furtively, or even passionately, she takes a blank ballot slip into the intimate privacy of the booth and strokes, strikes or spoils those empty boxes. No such inclination could exist, of course, if it weren’t obvious that for a woman to vote is a disorder. A pleasurable disorder, perhaps, but – like a risqué hemline at the altar rail – a disorder nonetheless.

Story by Alexander Shaw

Where women are emancipated, societies are wealthier. This correlation is touted without much discussion as to why it might be the case. It is easier to point out that feminine intuition and temperance stabilize society than to consider that only initially wealthy societies can afford empathy in their judicial processes and compassion in the hunt.

Biological restraints have caused the sexes to evolve distinct social behavioral patterns. A village that loses the majority of its men is obviously easier to repopulate than if it loses even a few of its women. Hedging one’s life in order to tame nature was a gamble that men could more readily make and it follows that, when pushed, societies have sacrificed male lives to preserve female lives. Most men who have ever lived have no living descendent today. Most women do. The competitive and often dangerous means by which we supplied ourselves, however, could not be employed in the nurture of dependent children. It was thus equally important to our survival that hard-won resources be distributed according to collective needs rather than individual merit. Men focused on the means, women enforced the ends.

Read more…

See more content like this at Reading Junkie

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: