Why There Are Not Many Women In Politics

One of the many pathetic attempts by feminists to claim victim status in a patriarchal society, is to claim that the fact that governments in democratic countries are mostly male, is a sign of male dominance and is evidence that women are held back in politics.
They of course say this because it immediately paints women as victims, which is why they very rarely put any more thought into it, because as soon as they've found a way to claim victim status from a situation, they cease thought on that subject, since they've now got what they want.
Also add to the fact that feminists fear the truth, it has a similar effect as Kryptonite does with Superman, so tend to avoid it at all costs, particularly because the truth very rarely paints women as poor little victims.

Well unlike feminists, I have thought about it, and I think I know why women are a minority in politics in democratic countries. It's absurd to even suggest that it's because of discrimination, not when we all have a vote, not when women make up 52% of the population, not when women are more likely to vote than men, and not when there are no barriers in place that prevent a woman from making it in politics that are not also in a man's path. So no, it's definitely not discrimination, so what are we left with?
Well there's the fact that men are more likely to get involved in politics than women are, that fact alone is entirely down to personal choice, no-one is prevented from a life in politics due to the way they were born, so women are choosing to enter politics less often than men, this cannot possibly be due to mistreatment or discrimination, it's down to personal choice (something you'd think feminists would be for rather than against).

It's not just that though, because of all the women that run in elections, few of them get elected, why?
Simple, they continually, time and time again, make themselves completely unelectable to more than half the population. Not just the male part of the population, but the female part who have men in their lives that they love and care for, like sons, nephews, fathers etc.
They do this by focusing all their attention on women, all the while only mentioning men negatively, and they do this for three reasons;

1. Women make up 52% of the population.
2. Women are viewed as the most gullible and easily led voters.
3. Women have a streak of hatred for men that's been ingrained into them since birth by the media and society at large.

They just assume that if they focus on women, then women will flock to the polls like zombie-sheep, hypnotised into ticking the women-friendly box, it's absolutely ridiculous, but to be fair to them, it does work on a lot of women, just not enough to get them elected.

Take Hillary Clinton (please take her) for example, she tried to play women for chumps when she was running against Obama, it was pitiful, but more pitiful was the fact that so many women bought it.
At first she told an audience of mostly women about the feminist's favourite, the glass ceiling, banging on about how things had to change, she done this so that women would view themselves as victims, with a chance to "make things right" by voting for a woman.
She done this with absolutely no sense of irony at all, even though it stank to the high heavens of irony, think about it, a woman who is competing to be in with a chance of becoming President of America, who some would argue is the most powerful nation on Earth, is talking about the existence of a glass ceiling in politics, hmm?
Well I don't mean to offend Americans, but your abilities are laughable if that's the best glass ceiling you can come up with, one that just allows women to possibly hold the highest position in the land, that's got to be the most ineffective glass ceiling ever.

At a later point in her campaign, she caught up to Obama in the race, or she got quite close to him, and after that happened, she spoke to a gathering of women, well I say women, most were foaming at the mouth, so I assume they were feminists, and again she attempted to play women for gullible chumps, which that particular audience of women clearly were.
She said it was thanks to women going out and voting that she caught up to Obama, not people, but women. So she just assumes the only people who would vote for her are women, yet she doesn't see that as a problem, she sees it as a positive thing.

Well I don't want to give away the ending, but let's just say America did get it's "first", but it wasn't the first female President, and why was that?
Well some would say it was because Obama was popular, not politically, but celebrity-wise, and I'm sure that's true, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Hillary treated more than half the population (the male part and the female part who have men in their lives that they love) as irrelevant, leading to Obama competing against McCain instead of Hillary, or to put it another way, she shot herself in the foot.

What annoys me is the fact that if a male politician behaved the same way, he'd be called on it immediately, like thanking male voters while ignoring the women who voted for him, the media wouldn't let it slide, they'd ask why he ignores women, they'd ask why he always focuses on men.
Not many women would vote for a man who was going around with "men this" and "men that", yet female politicians seem to think this won't be the same the other way round, but it's exactly the same, no man wants to vote for a woman going "women this" and "women that" all the livelong day.

I'll tell you the name of a woman who never played the gender card, never played the victim card, never needed female-only shortlists to get elected, was elected as fairly as any man, and was taken seriously and treated with respect by all the world leaders, her name is Margaret Thatcher, I'm sure you've heard of her.
She was elected fairly as leader of the Conservative party in February 1975, in May 1979 she became the first female Prime Minister, a fact she didn't milk and endlessly bang on about, and she remained as PM until November 1990.
Now love her or hate her, she's cast iron evidence that women can make it in politics in democratic countries. She didn't need to be treated like a child and patronised with female-only shortlists or affirmative action, she didn't need to treat women as gullible chumps by constantly banging on about women all the time, she didn't play herself off as a victim, and she made it to the highest seat in the land, not bad for a woman in a so-called patriarchal society.

I'm sure you could say many positive and negative things about any leader, but I believe that women seeking a career in politics should maybe take a look at Margaret Thatcher's career, and take a few notes.

Then we have the pathetic argument for more women being either forced into positions in politics, or only giving the electorate women to vote for, and it's that more women in politics would mean women's needs are "looked out for", like they aren't looked out for already.
This is an absurd argument because politicians are to serve the people, not just those that were born similar to them, that would make them discriminatory, not only that, it would make them completely incompetent as politicians.
So those that think more women in politics would mean women are looked out for more, must then think that most female politicians are incompetent and sexist, to assume they'll only serve women if elected is to assume they're incompetent, since their job is to serve the people, no matter how they were born.

I put it simply, if women really want to make it in politics, then make yourself electable, it's the only way. You know you wouldn't vote for a man who focused on men while ignoring women, so don't think men are any different, don't make everything a gender issue, if you do, you almost immediately become unelectable to more than half the population.

Rant over.