Posted by Nicholas at October 4, 2007 12:08 AMI can't remember whether it was Robert Ardrey or Desmond Morris who observed that, unlike men, who've evolved complex patterns of threat display, rules of war, and other behaviors to avoid a fight unless it's absolutely necessary, women have none of these things. Most of the time, they're not called upon to fight, but when they are, because they're smaller and weaker than any likely aggressor, and because they're the absolute last line of defense for their homes and babies, they are natural berserkers who won't fight fair or pull their punches.
Robert Heinlein famously said that the moral range of women is broader than the moral range of men, that the best among them are better than the best men, and the worst among them are worse. Women often display the tenacity of a little cat fighting a great big dog. They don't know or acknowledge any limit until the enemy is dead or they are. That's commendable in everyday life. I have been careful to marry just such a female, and we have made sure our daughter is the same.
But there are those — and yes, say what you will or flounce off in a snit, I am among them — who believe that those traits disqualify women for certain occupations in which rituals to avoid violence and customs to limit it are everything. Police work comes immediately to mind. I have never seen a policewoman I thought was fit for the job, and I came close to being shot by one, once, over the height of my lawn.
On the other hand, it's fair to ask, is there any man who's fit for telling other people what to do with their lives, liberty and property, for beating them up and killing them, or threatening to do so?
L. Neil Smith, "Evil Women", Libertarian Enterprise, 2007-09-30
Visitors since 17 August, 2004