Thursday, April 30, 2009

Women Are So Much Better Than Everybody Else And Should Be In Charge Of Stuff

Is it possible that the last op-ed ever to appear in the Boston Globe could be a golden paean to the loving maternal arms of the Nanny State?

Apparently without a shred of irony, editorial-page editor Renee Loth has taken up her silvered quill and penned a rather quaint Victorian essay on the Virtues of Womankind. Specifically, the women of New Hampshire. It seems that in New Hampshire, serving on the state legislature has become one of those tainted women-jobs, like cleaning toilets and fixing hair. The result? Gas tax! Gay marriage! Liberals! Hooray!

Loth attributes a recent leftward shift in New Hampshire politics to the superior ethical powers of women, who are increasingly taking up the mantle of public service out of their vast selflessness, and deciding what's best for everybody else. I wish I were making this up.

This is the more interesting question about women in power. Sure, women should be heard more in government - and the law, and science, and journalism - as a matter of sheer equity. But it's not the quantity of women so much as the different quality that can bring real change.

That last sentence. It appears to mean something. But what? What?

Women see the world as a web of relationships. They are more communitarian and less individualistic. They are less ideological and more practical. It's hard to imagine a better set of qualities for solving the intricate problems that face our world.

Naturally, all this female-superiority talk is playing straight into the grubby hands of the live-free-or-die-ers. The commenters on the Globe board, most of whom appear to be a bunch of third-generation Xerox copies of Howie Carr's mugshot come magically to life, are loving the hell out of it. A sample:

Let me summarize the article: Men are stupid, Women are reshaping NH (and the world) for the better.

Reverse all of the subtle and no so subtle points in the article and you have outrage from the liberal media and feminazis. Bashing men is so 21st century!

Well, Renee Loth, if you set out to prove nutjob libertarian gazillionaire Peter Thiel right, you're doing a hell of a job. Clearly letting those women-people vote is the first step down a nasty slippery slope of some sort.

But don't worry. Mommy is waiting at the bottom to catch all her wayward children, and gather them up into a bright and glorious future.


  1. This is what she chose as her possible final testament?

    Loth's vapidity is matched only by the vast quantity of spittle from her commenters (wait, somebody actually reads them?). Is she aware that Meldrim Thompson hasn't been governor for, like, decades now? That the leftwardish movement started before November (why, one might argue it started when vast droves of people of all genders began moving from Massachusetts 30 years ago). Or that her paragraph about the volunteer legislature sounds suspiciously like a, er, um, strawman argument?

    But what do I know? I'm no avatar of change, that's for sure. I, for one, welcome our new female overlords.

  2. Yes, that's all well and good, but what happens if they all start getting their periods at the same time? I'd hate to be the one try to push through important legislation requiring state healthcare agencies to cover Viagra prescriptions that week!

  3. This reminds me of a few years ago, when the French realized that, like, 51% of their judges were female. AHHHHH! Everyone became very nervous that the rule of law would cease to exist and in its place would be The Rule of Maman.

  4. Jezzica: Right. Because running your judicial system as a meritocracy, in which people are generally appointed based on qualifications instead of gender, is clearly going to destroy America. Er, France.

    This bullshit "problem" of too many male defendants being judged by female judges in France is sort of hilarious. What we need is more women in crime, eh? That would balance things out nicely.