Feminist Belief In Female Superiority By The Numbers

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.

A Snapshot Of What Feminists Really Want

New York Times ran an article about New Hampshire sending an all-female delegation to Congress. The piece was titled “From Congress to Halls of State, in New Hampshire, Women Rule” and proudly heralded that “… the matriarchy does not end there. New Hampshire’s new governor is a woman. So are the speaker of the State House and the chief justice of the State Supreme Court.” The article called female-dominated politics a “women’s historic milestone.”

What is missing is the important question of equality. Given that the lynchpin of the feminist movement was equality for women in a male-dominated world (as we are constantly told), a blatant swing of the male/female needle toward the female end of the spectrum would rationally illicit a call that something had gone wrong. Rather, this newly established inequality of leadership is heralded and celebrated. This means that for feminists there might not be anything wrong with inequality, as long as it is an inequality in their favor.

The article does attempt to justify this by arguing that the world is still a “man’s world”:

Women will make up 20 percent of the new Senate and 17.9 percent of the new House. These are records in Washington, but they fall far short of matching the 50.8 percent of the general population that is female.

And:

While New Hampshire is doing more than its share of bolstering the number of women on Capitol Hill, six states — Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota and Vermont — have never elected a woman to the House. And four of those — Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi and Vermont — have never sent a woman to the Senate.

Now, the assumption is, of course, that women in those states are somehow still trapped under a patriarchy, despite the modern means of relocation and employment and government empowerment of female interests. As one member of the New Hampshire delegation said:

In some other states, there’s more of a dominant old-boy network.

In 1870, Susan Cooper wrote a long and rational treatise arguing against women’s right to vote (Unmaking Feminist has a analysis). She was wise enough to see the ulterior motive for feminist ambition toward political power. She wrote:

A third reason is also given for this proposed change in our political constitution. It is asserted that the entire sex would be greatly elevated in intellectual and moral dignity by such a course [women’s suffrage]; and that the effect on the whole race would therefore be most advantageous, as the increased influence of woman in public affairs would purify politics, and elevate the whole tone of political life. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, 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.

More to the point, feminists believe that women should run things because they are better than men and they can do a better job.

Despite recent developments that have profoundly benefited women in the United States, feminists see women only holding 20% of the nation’s authority while being 50% of the population as a mark of ongoing male corruption (this despite the amazing power the 20% wield through their influence over male feminists in Washington and the profound influence that women have naturally over the culture at large). The only solution they see is to “purify politics” by replacing men with women en mass and establishing a matriarchy. Since the inception of women’s suffrage, the main drive for feminism is not the noble but misguided idea of equality of opportunity for women, but the supplanting of positions of power in order to replace men with women.