If women ruled the country, the government wouldn't be on the brink of shutting down or defaulting on its debt, according to Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).Things like college attendance and completion make it plausible that the US is headed for gender equality at the very least. Why then the relentless feminist pounding on the victim drum?
Murray spoke to a largely female audience on Wednesday, at an event that was part of The Atlantic's Women of Washington series.
Because some feminists aren't interested in gender parity and equal opportunity...because they're using victimology to establish a hard-to-dismantle legal framework for future female dominance? Consider how men are depicted, here for example, in the Lean In Collection. The traditional role of the sexes has been reveresed, not equalized; the males look like adjuncts, not partners. I doubt that's accidental.
I question whether an American gynarchy is sustainable. Maybe it will be sustainable for a time among US whites, whose cultural confidence is being browbeaten out of them. That said, I'm open to the notion that women could run a static, bureaucratic society better than men could. However, I question whether the US can transition to such a society without major quantitative external and internal setbacks. (Of course, especially in a prosperous democracy, the general welfare is often (usually?) a peripheral concern to those who have their eyes set on power.)