Women in Politics Worldwide

July 15, 2009 in Feminism | Comments (7)

 

I’ve never hid that the fact that I think that large scale female involvement it politics, or work in general, is a bad thing.  Women simply didn’t evolve to be the decision makers in society.  Their lack of rational thought is apparent in women’s tendency to be liberal.  Another way to look at it is that as it stands right now, women can focus their energy on having families or working.  The more intelligent the woman, the more she can earn and the more appealing work will be.  The less skilled a woman is, the more family, or living off the government, becomes the attractive option.  No wonder that modern fertility is dysgenic.  So,

 

women’s liberation = the end of human civilization

 

I thought it would be interesting to look at how involved women are in politics across the globe, judged by female representation in each country’s parliament.  Most of my data comes from an international organization dedicated to quotas.  The exceptions are the data for the US, Russia, Iran and Japan.  The numbers for Russia are only for one of two houses of the legislature, and Iran’s data is from before the last election.  Japan’s numbers are accurate as of 2007.  

 

Before we get to the data, let’s take a step back and see how amazing and complete the West’s cultural dominance is.  First of all, practically every nation in the world has a legislature.  Some don’t have any power, but everybody in the world feels the need to at least pretend to elect representatives who will make laws.  Second, quotas for women parliament members exist in just  about every country looked at (the few exceptions will be noted).  Had Westerners never conquered the world, it’s doubtful that a Korean, Arab or African would’ve ever gotten the idea that his country needed to mandate by law that females get a portion of political power.  We’re never told why we “need” more women.  Most of these statistics are collected by organizations or journalists scolding certain countries for their lack of female political participation.  I suppose the liberal goal is for men and women to be 50/50 in everything in every country.  If conservatives have more moderate goals (say women being 40% of each parliament) they never make them clear.  That such a mindless philosophy became so internationally dominant is discouraging.  But I digress.  

 

Let’s first look at the West.

 


Country

Women % of Parliament

Historically Dominant Religion

Sweden

47.3

Protestantism

Iceland

42.9

Protestantism

Norway

37.9

Protestantism

Denmark

37.4

Protestantism

Netherlands

36.7

Protestantism/Catholicism

Belgium

36.7

Catholicism

Spain

36.3

Catholicism

Austria

32.2

Catholicism

Germany

31.8

Protestantism/Catholicism

Australia

24.7

Protestantism

United States

20.9

Protestantism

Canada

20.8

Protestantism

Poland

20.4

Catholicism

United Kingdom

19.9

Protestantism

France

18.5

Catholicism

Italy

17.3

Catholicism

Greece

16.0

Orthodox

Czech Republic

15.5

Catholicism

Russia

14.4

Orthodox

Ireland

13.3

Catholicism

Romania

11.5

Orthodox

Hungary

10.6

Catholicism

Albania

7.2

Islam

 

Paul Gottfried’s theory looks good here.  He believes that the Protestant Reformation set us on the road to political correctness.  The four countries with the most women in politics are Protestant while the bottom nine are Catholic, Orthodox or Muslim.  All countries listed except Russia and America have some kind of quota system.  Sweden seems to be the most horrifyingly gone as far as demasculinization.  A woman’s organization at Stockholm University called for men to sit down while peeing.  A healthy political culture seems to be correlated with less female involvement.  Russia and Italy have been the toughest on immigration and have few women law makers.  It doesn’t seem to help the birth rate though, as women in more matriarchal societies such as America and Sweden have higher fertility rates.  Perhaps the patriarchal societies are less dysgenic.  I wish there was some way to find out.

 

This also goes back to the question of whether this is predominately a biological or cultural issue.  Does it matter more that the Northern European countries are genetically Nordic or that they have a history of Protestantism?  In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald writes the following in the introduction (xxvi-xxvii):

 

The relatively greater proneness to forming a simple household type may well be ethnically based.  During the pre-industrial eta, this household system was only found within Nordic Europe: The simple household type is based on a single married couple and their children and characterized Scandinavia (except Finland), British Isles, Low Countries, Germanic-speaking areas, and northern France. Within France, the simple household occurred in areas inhabited by the Germanic people who lived northeast of “the eternal line” running from Saint Malo on the English Channel coast to Geneva in French-speaking Switzerland (Ladurie 1986).  This area developed large scale agriculture capable of feeding the growing towns and cities, and did so prior to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century.  It was supported by a large array of skilled craftsmen in the town…The northeast became the center of French industrialization and world trade.

 

The northeast also differed from the southwest in literacy rates.  In the early 19th century, while literacy rates in France as a whole were approximately 50%, the rate in the northeast was close to 100%, and differences occurred at least from the 17th century…In addition, Laslett (1983) and other family historians have noted that the trend toward the economically independent nuclear family was more prominent in the north, while there was a tendency toward joint families as one moves to the south and east.

 

These findings are compatible with the interpretation that ethnic differences are a contributing factor to the geographical variation in family forms within Europe.  The findings suggest that the Germanic peoples had a greater biological tendency toward the simple household because of natural selection occurring in a prolonged resource-limited period of their evolution in the north of Europe.  Similar tendencies toward exogamy, monogamy, individualism, and relative de-emphasis of the extended family were also characteristic of Roman civilization (MacDonald 1990), again suggesting an ethnic tendency that pervades Western cultures generally.  

 

Current data indicate that around 80% of European genes are derived from people who settled in Europe 30-40,000 years ago and therefore persisted through the Ice Ages (Sykes 2001).  This is sufficient time for the adverse ecology of the north to have had a powerful shaping influence on European psychological and cultural tendencies.  These European groups were less attracted to extended kinship groups, so that when the context altered with the rise of powerful central governments able to guaranty individual interests, the simple household structure quickly became dominant.  This simple family structure was adopted relatively easily because Europeans already had relatively powerful psychological predispositions toward the simple family resulting from its prolonged evolutionary history in the north of Europe.

 

Although these differences within the Western European system are important, they do not belie the general difference between Western Europe and the rest of Eurasia.  Although the trend toward simple household occurred first in the northwest of Europe, they spread relatively quickly among all the Western European countries.  

 

MacDonald also believes that a relatively high status given to women is another product of the unique Nordic psychological makeup. We maybe can mesh the MacDonald and Gottfried positions together and guess that Northern Europeans were more susceptible to Protestantism in the first place, due to their surviving the Ice Ages. 

 

Now let’s look at the Far East.

 

 

Country

Women % of Parliament

Taiwan

22.2

China

20.3

North Korea

20.1

South Korea

13.0

Japan

9.4

 

The top four countries have quotas, Japan doesn’t.  None of these nations are reproducing much, but at least they’re not replacing themselves with immigrants.  Also, Richard Lynn has found that although fertility in Japan is low, it’s not dysgenic. This backs up my theory that feminism encourages the breeding of the worst women and sterility of the best.

Here are some countries from the Middle East and South Asia 

 

Country 

Women % of Parilament

Nepal

32.8

Afghanistan

27.3

Iraq

25.5

Pakistan

21.3

Israel

17.4

India

10.9

Algeria

7.2

Jordan

6.4

Lebanon

4.7

Iran

3.8

Egypt

2.0

 

Surprisingly, all these countries except Lebanon and Iran have quotas.  The high numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan is thanks to the militant affirmative action imposed by the American conquerors.  Ironically, both these strict Muslim countries were forced to accept a higher percentage of women in government than the US itself has.  I have no idea why Nepal’s number is so high.  They also have Maoist rebels who apparently have an influence there.  Are Nepal’s elites simply obsessed with the most destructive ideas of the West?

Africa’s numbers are all over the place.  Here’s a sample of countries.  

 

Country

Women % of Parliament

Rwanda

56.3

South Africa

43.0

Angola

37.3

Namibia

26.9

Uganda

23.8

Ethiopia

21.2

Kenya

9.4

Somalia

7.8

Ghana

7.8

Equatorial Guinea

6.0

 

That Rwandan number looks huge but it’s only out of a legislature of 80 people.  The country had a terrible genocide in the 1990s and perhaps it became feminized out of guilt the way Germany did.  South Africa’s ruling class came to power as darlings of the Western elite. They took to many of their ideas.  SA, for example, is the only African country to have legalized homosexual marriage.  Blacks in contact with Western intellectuals end up taking after their beliefs.  As a commentator at Steve Sailer’s blog pointed out, that’s why Jeremiah Wright hates Israel.  

There’s certainly more variation in Africa than anywhere else in the world.  I considered that there may be biological differences between East and West Africans, with the more Congoid Westerners letting women do more of the work.  But both the countries with the highest female representation in the continent and the lowest are West African nations.  There are certainly cultural factors within individual countries that I’m not aware of.  

Comments (7)

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

  1. Comment by Political — July 16, 2009 @ 12:24 am

    I think we want to give more chances for women in politics, It will be better.

  2. Comment by Pseudothyrum — July 16, 2009 @ 4:11 am

    Another way to look at the “dysgenic” trend is: MAYBE NATURE DOES NOT WANT OR NEVER INTENDED FOR INTELLIGENT WOMEN TO BREED VERY MUCH?

    With all of the modern Western women who are very intelligent, driven, and liberal not having very many kids overall, in the future we’ll inevitably be left with females who are generally ‘dumber’ as well as more obedient and deferential toward men. Perhaps nature is making sure that the smartest women (who as stated so often tend to be lesbians) don’t breed and thus is working to keep the majority of females ditzy and ‘in their place’ so to speak?

    So maybe intelligence in females is SELECTED AGAINST in evolutionary terms?

    Also notice that females who are much more intelligent than average tend to be either lesbians, very masculine in their mindset/behavior (which naturally turns men away from them), and/or asexual.

    In other words: why does above-average intelligence and lesbianism seem to be correlated in females?

  3. Comment by JL — July 16, 2009 @ 4:42 am

    Russia and Albania are Western countries? In my book only white Catholic and Protestant countries can be part of the West.

    “Russia and Italy have been the toughest on immigration and have few women law makers. It doesn’t seem to help the birth rate though, as women in more matriarchal societies such as America and Sweden have higher fertility rates.

    I think the higher fertility rates of the more “matriarchal” societies can be explained by what Steve Sailer has called “affordable family formation”. In places where people can better afford to start families there will be more children. In the US, there’s lots of land and relatively low tax rates, whereas the Nordic countries and France, while high-tax, subsidize family formation a lot more than e.g. Southern European countries.

  4. Comment by Garnet — July 16, 2009 @ 9:35 am

    Hoste, I’m not 100% sure as to exactly what your views of sex differences are. While only, well, a lunatic nowadays would deny innate sex differences, the issue of sexual dimorphism among humans is also abit of a debate. I mean, does sexual dimorphism among humans follow a purely consistent array of equal differences, or are there discrepancies?

    From my readings into the NN debate, I’ve now found feelings of misygony and misandry to be pretty damn stupid. While men are surely far more logical, creative, and inventive than women, a major component of this is psychotism- which is a major aspect of creativity- and this leads to men to be profoundly more violent, destructive, vicous, etc. And while men have a wider IQ distribution, it also makes them obviously more prone to extremities in the lower range.

  5. Comment by bgc — July 16, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

    Hoste says: “women’s liberation = the end of human civilization” – I think this is almost certainly correlation, not causation.

    What, then, is the main cause both of women’s liberation and the decline of modernization? That is the tricky question.

    My guess is that it is due to an interaction between the progressive rise of IQ-meritocracy, and some maladaptive and self-destructive factor to do with the personality of high IQ people – but especially women.

  6. Comment by brazil84 — July 17, 2009 @ 10:08 am

    ” I think this is almost certainly correlation, not causation. ”

    There’s an easy way to test it, which is to go back and look at election polls to see who would have been elected if women’s votes were disregarded.

    I’m pretty confident that in almost every election, the more conservative candidate would have done significantly better.

    Not only that, but logically, the effect would have multiplied itself, since more conservative candidates would have been nominated; more conservative judges appointed; and so on.

    The next question is whether liberalism really is as destructive as folks make it out to be. It seems to me that the answer is pretty clearly “yes.” Just about every unpleasant social problem in the United States can be traced to NAMs, HBD-denialism, and the like. I’m not sure if it will make the US collapse, but it does seem like we are creating a lot of problems for our descendants.

    So basically I agree we would be better off if women were not allowed to vote. Of course I think that women as a group are at least as valuable and important as men — possibly more so — but the two groups are not the same.

  7. Comment by Anonymous — July 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

    Outstanding post, my first time here.

    This being the internet, one quibble: Protestantism as dominant religion in Canada is arguable; today, Catholics form a plurality, ~42%, and at confederation in 1867 the populations would have been very close, with the arrival of Irish Catholics buttressing the long Catholic majority versus rapidly increasing Protestant immigration. Politically and economically, yes, Protestants would seem to be dominant, but it is at least arguable.

    Women have a massive material incentive to vote statist and form a Grand Coalition, along with brown people and gays, against white het males. Good to see other people see this too. No, women should never have been allowed to vote, it has led to nothing less than the fall of western civilization and a slow motion genocide being perpetrated against whites.

Leave a comment