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.
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.