The following article is under submission. It is posted for entertainment purposes only and may not be crossposted to any other website, datafile base, conference, news group, or email list, without written permission of the author.
Copyright © 1999 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.

Twice in the last several weeks I have been a recipient of eMail, sent out by a woman, asking for my support for a United-Nations-sponsored project. The first instance was to ask for my signature on a petition to the U.N. asking for its intervention against Afghanistan for its human rights record regarding mistreatment of women. The newer instance is reflected in a message I just received asking for me to go to a United-Nations sponsored website, which is supposed to trigger a corporate donation to a U.N. project to feed hungry people.

Both of these requests sound benevolent on the face of them. Who but Ebenezer Scrooge could turn down a plea to feed the hungry, and who but the Marquis de Sade favors keeping women in painful bondage?

Yet, to both these women, I have instantly responded in the negative, couching my negativity in such obscene and profane language as I could muster. I not only have not tempered my language because I knew the recipient was a woman, but I have intentionally used obscenity in rejecting her request because of it.

The use of obscenity is usually thought of as a cause for the instigation of a quarrel between men, historically one resolved by personal combat. The code of chivalry embedded in Christendom (euphemistically called "Western Culture" nowadays) was premised on the idea that men fought men and protected women. Men did not fight women. (Women did not fight women.) A man who would strike a woman was a brute and not a gentleman. A man who would use discourteous language to a woman was a coward, since he would not be facing an opponent of equal strength in any quarrel that might result from his provocation, unless she sought a male champion to fight on behalf of her honour.

At the time this code of chivalry was in force, women in politics was a rarity. Yes, there was Jeanne d'Arc and Elizabeth Regina and the Borgias; but those were special cases, notable as exceptions. Women did not normally serve as combatants in the armies or navies of Christian nations, thus, in Christendom women did not normally wield political power, which is always backed up by military force. I am not here going to offer a complete discussion of the historical role of women in the workplace, when the workplace was as often as not a peasant-run farm; but it would require a perverse reading of history to suggest that for the last two millennia women have shared an equal role with men in business and politics.

The last two centuries have changed this. The origins of modern feminism at the tail end of the 18th century, resulting at the dawn of the third millennium A.D. in Women's Suffrage and the commonality of women in both the workplace and politics, has given men an untenable choice. We can either continue to observe the rules of chivalry toward women, and thus be at a disadvantage whereby a woman may use her gender immunities as political jiu jutsu, or respond to them as we would to another man, and subject ourselves to the charges that we are brutes and cowards.

This is a con game, and it's time to raid the house.

Let me be John Galt here and state it explicitly. Women engaging in politics have no more claim to a civil tongue from men than do other men. And women who use their naivete about issues involving basic principles to foist off political thuggery by cloaking it as the milk of human kindness need to be shocked into a wakefulness about the results of their actions. I don't believe in fighting women qua women, but I would shoot a woman guard in a Nazi concentration camp or Stalinist Gulag as quickly as I would shoot a man holding those jobs.

Women can think. I know this from my personal experiences with many women in many different contexts. I know this from reading Ayn Rand, a seminal--er, amniotic--influence on me. I know this from discussions with my eight-year-old daughter. Yet, women apparently do not act on abstract political principles as regularly as do men. I realize I'm treading perilously close to the errors of bigotry here. But it would be foolish, because of fear of overgeneralization, not to recognize that women as a voting bloc tend to favor a nanny state, and tend as a voting bloc to shy away from nasty realities such as that gun control is intended to give a still-armed nanny state a disarmed public which it may infantalize without limit. Women as a voting bloc tend to look at what carrots government gives out as rewards without looking at the sticks it needs to use to collect the carrots in the first place.

In short, as a general observation with exceptions already duly noted: woman as a voting bloc tend to vote like irresponsible children, and tend to want the government to treat men as irresponsible children, too.

These requests to support United Nations projects is symptomatic of this. The noble purpose is paraded; the principles that need to be violated, and the villains who must be supported to accomplish these noble goals, are hidden.

The United Nations is not yet a world state, but there's no doubt that the establishment forces today would be happy to make it one, so long as it remains under their control. The appeal of the United Nations to the Third World is envy; the appeal of the United Nations to the First and Second Worlds is power. It appeals to those forces of imperialism and international robbery in the developed nations; it appeals to tinpot dictators in the undeveloped nations. Both unite in agreement that a Blue Beret is an emblem of virtue; and those who oppose it are at best atavists and at worst partisans of what Gore Vidal called the Hitler of the Month.

I do not oppose the idea of world government in principle, so long as that principle is that of the American Declaration of Independence. On the day that the United Nations recognizes the unlimited right of universal individual secession and of every man, woman, and child on this planet to be armed to the teeth in defense of his or her life, liberty, property, family, neighborhood, and nation, I will consider such a world government minimally tolerable.

But the truth of the matter, today, is that anything seemingly good done under the name United Nations is about equivalent to Nazis collecting canned goods for the poor. The United Nations today is an ad hoc invasion force any time the international aristocracy needs one. They are attempting worldwide disarmament of anyone who might oppose them, and that means me and someday my daughter.

If they wish my click for the poor, or my signature on a women's rights petition, they can do me the courtesy of first removing those insignia which today mean, to much of the world, that the dreams of world domination did not die in a bunker but merely changed to designer colors.

November 8, 1999

##