A piece of wisdom that our ancestors knew but modern people have forgotten is the need to exclude women from political power. European cultures have historically included a public/private social distinction. Men are in the public and women in the private. In the original Latin, the Roman Republic (Res Publica) is the “Public Matter.” Since politics is a public matter, it is a male duty, and homemaking is a female duty. Modernity’s deconstruction of that distinction has likewise deconstructed gender roles as a whole and the state as a force for good. Here, I intend to show that distinction to be the legitimate basis for the state and the common good.
Plato likens ideal statesmen to “herdsmen of humanity.” That should be applied even further to the state as a whole, particularly since it implies human herds. These herds are formed by genetic similarity; such are races, nations, and families in an overlapping continuum. The sum of such a continuum is civil society. That is essential to actualizing human potential because civil society is how people comprehend themselves in the world. It is the function of the state to guide humans toward their potential by binding the herd in common spiritual struggle. As such, there must be familial continuity; for all humans herds are extended families. And yet, female political power divides the family against itself in pushing women into male spaces of politics. In dividing the family, both the family and civil society becomes dysfunctional. Hence, female political power contradicts the basis for the state.
Humans are rational, but not fully so since they are also ruled by intuition. A person’s intuition is developed by evolutionary history and in his or her relation to civil society. Human intuition in differing between human groups rules how they use rationality to relate to the world. All human action is the consequence of a dialectical process of rationality and intuition. Further, men and women differ in their innate intuition. Male intuition is to war; female intuition is to mother. War and motherhood are the essential conditions, for which nature conditions men and women respectively. Men perceive all other people as friends or enemies, and women perceive all other people as children or partners. Since the state is itself a friend/enemy distinction, such female intuition make them particularly unfit for political power. It does not matter how rational or “intelligent” a woman might be because they lack the psychology to understand the conceptual basis of the state. The state is an alternative to war. The state establishes law over a certain people and uniting a people in common spiritual struggle. Only those who can comprehend war and the friend/enemy distinction are fit for political power.
Humans are social animals. Social structures and roles are inseparable from their humanness; both of which have origins in human nature. Tear down one structure, and you will see another takes its place. These together form social roles, which are antecedents of the developed human self. It is utterly immoral to deconstruct gender roles since that would also deconstruct humanness as a whole. Since gender roles have origins in human nature, to create true equality between the genders would require suppression of human nature and therefore extreme tyranny. But, instead, blather about gender equality is mostly just rhetoric. Feminism is a method for women to opt out of social duties but still benefit from the social duties that men owe to them. As such, patriarchal norms that grant privileges to women suffer no objection from feminists. Encountering women, men do not demand the same of them as they would of other men because people have an intuitive understanding of gender roles. And yet, politics is premised on duty that men have to each other. Thus, a consequence of female political power is a deterioration of the polity as whole.