In my previous article I looked at the ulterior motives behind feminists heralding the matriarchy in New Hampshire. I argued that
… public affairs are corrupt because they are male-dominated and women would “purify” those affairs by their participation. Of course this assumes that women are somehow immune to the temptations that power and wealth offer to men. Such an immunity would essentially make women morally and practically superior to men.
Further proof that feminism is an ideology of female supremacy is found in the numbers.
Congressional Research Services released a report in November 2012 tallying up the members in the 112th Congress. They break down into 241 Republicans and 198 Democrats in the House and 47 Republicans and 51 Democrats in the Senate. All together they compromise 537 members*.
Also in the November 2012, the CRS released the numbers of women in Congress. 24 Republicans and 53 Democrats in the House and 5 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Senate for a total of 94*. That means Congress has 443 men.
According to the Times article on the New Hampshire matriarchy, women make up, on average, just under 20% of Congress (the CRS report makes it 16%) while being 51% of the population. On the surface this may look like women wield next to nothing in terms of political authority. However, what is not taken into account is the number of male feminists in Congress. As defined by feminism, the male portion of the Republicans can be effectively discarded. This leaves 184 male Democrats who are feminists. Along with the 65 female Democrats, women are represented by 46% of Congress. If female Republicans are factored in, the number is 52%.
Since feminism is said to represent women and women’s interests, American women are represented by 46%-52% of the Congress while being 51% of the population. It is simply assumed that male Republicans are an “old boy network” who are concerned only with the interests of men, whites, and the wealthy.
However, the NYT article emphasizes that women only make up 20% of Congress. What about the 74% of Democrats who are male feminists? Why doesn’t their presence in Congress carry any weight? Isn’t having 52% of the Congress representing the 51% of women in the American population what we might call equal representation? For feminists, the answer is no. Male feminists are rendered null and void by feminists (including other male feminists!) simply because they are men. Being feminist does not automatically mean that men are capable of representing women’s interests. To represent women’s interests, feminists desire a Congress that is at the minimum 51% female to match the 51% population mark.
Now it gets interesting.
Since men are assumed incapable of representing women’s interests despite their being feminists, it has to be asked if women are capable of representing men’s interests. To suggest that there is something men can do that women cannot (in this case representing men’s interests) flies in the face of feminist equality with men. So feminism would say that, yes, women can represent men’s interests as well as men can. We all know about the history of heroic mothers raising good and decent sons heralded as proof that women can represent men’s interests.
This stance essentially states that men are inferior to women in the sphere of representative government and positions of authority since men are capable of only representing one-half of the population (men) while women are capable of representing the whole (both men and women). This means that women are far more capable of ruling the nation than men are. Hence, feminism is an ideology of male inferiority and female superiority. And such an idea would naturally require a government that is 100% female to ensure that all Americans are duly represented.
*These numbers do not include independents, delegates, and vacant seats.