Just like our fundamental fallacy of believing that all people are equal, and therefore assumed to be equal in ability and moral character, as a means of obliterating caste distinctions so that proles feel comfortable being mediocre, we the moderns have also erased any mention of differences in ability between the sexes.
And yet, they are present, as are variations in outlook and approach.
Watching Theresa May get handed her severed buttocks in a paper bag in this last election reminds me of every “powerful” woman I have seen in the workforce: she did everything by the book, she focused on the details, she oriented herself toward compromise and letting every voice be heard, she suppressed dissent so that pacifism could reign, and then she lost because she was indecisive.
Every bloody teacher, every woman boss, every chairwoman of the committee, and most women at in the family have become this type of arrogant, straight-A student and petit tyrant that Bruce Charlton describes as head-of-class girls in his book The Genius Famine. We have replaced geniuses with memorizers and detail obsessives, and women excel in that role and thus help shepherd our downfall.
While it is tempting to blame women exclusively, a huge part of the blame falls on democratic thinking itself. We designed this theory around removing kings, so we need some way to pick leaders, and we pick ways we think we can control: “education,” or the memorization and repeating of facts and formulas, and “meritocracy,” or rewarding those who are the best at tasks defined by their bosses.
Both of these are nonsense and lead to selection of bad leaders.
There are the rare exceptions, like Margaret Thatcher and Joan of Arc, but generally, the feminization of leadership has produced nothing but misery and horror. Much like democracy, which can fail for 200 years and then hope to fix its problems with one candidate, feminized leadership can sometimes correct itself, but only after piling so much dirt on its grave that it can never really dig its way out.