Every so often there's that obligatory article asking, "Are Women Superior at_____?" or "Do Women Make Better ______?," with politicians often being the focus.

Of course, the question is always asked rhetorically.  No matter the facts of the case, you'll never hear, "We examined the issue exhaustively from all perspectives, consulted with premier authorities in the discipline, collated the data, and have determined that in this endeavor, women, to employ the official nomenclature, really suck."  In fact, I haven't heard any kind of dismissal of feminine abilities in any area -- of the kind routinely made regarding men -- since a 1993 Golf Magazine piece titled "Women can't chip."

So it's no surprise that National Journal is running a painfully long and vapid article by one Jill Lawrence titled "Do Women Make Better Senators Than [sic] Men?"  The answer is a foregone conclusion, so you don't need to imbibe Lawrence's 4,000-plus-word screed (I may pen a piece, "Do Women Make Wordier Journalists than Men?"), which bears the self-revelatory subtitle "They [women] make up one-fifth of the body [the Senate]. It doesn't look anything like parity (or America), but they believe they can do what the men can't -- namely, get things done."

Now, I'll address what's actually getting "done" momentarily, but, first, can we stop already with the "looks like America" poseur's platitude?  Here's a clue: the Senate ain't never gonna look like 'merica, pal.  The tremendous resources it takes to wage political campaigns alone ensure that we won't see John Q. Publics -- plumbers, carpenters, pipe-fitters, secretaries -- in higher (lower?) office.  The truth?  The media, which definitely doesn't look like America, notices that legislatures or cabinets don't look like America only when favored groups are, ahem, "underrepresented."  But do they ever notice the relative dearth of masons (as opposed to the many Freemasons), or even non-lawyers?  And there's an idea: get those blasted legalistic, mandate-metastasizing attorneys out of government -- whether they be male, female, or San Franciscan.

Getting back to Lawrence's thesis, she says that women exhibit "more collaboration, less confrontation; more problem-solving, less ego; more consensus-building, less partisanship. ... And there is plenty of evidence, in the form of deals made and bills passed, that women know how to get things done."  I'm sure.  With our government, heck, I think we're all gonna get done good.

Lawrence writes that more female senators "could mean less stasis," but what does government get "done," exactly?  Would less stasis mean the production of more cars, TVs, natural gas, wheat, or even Sandra Fluke's favorite product?  No, active government produces more laws, regulations, and mandates, which are virtually always removals of freedom and which hamper the private sector; it raises taxes and steals our money; and it engages in social engineering.  Less stasis means more statism. 

Let's be blunt: liberals will say that women have more political sense for a simple reason.

Women are more liberal.

And some conservatives pay lip service to the idea because of how cultural affirmative action causes them to view certain female politicians.  

It's also because my conservative brethren buy into other myths, such as the notion that women went big for Republicans in 2010.  Actually, they broke for Democrats 49-48 -- a much smaller margin than usual, but still true to form.

Now, Lawrence does acknowledge this in so many words, writing, "The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights[.]"  But she treats the leftist agenda as the default yardstick, crediting female senators with being instrumental in things such as expensive farm bills, ObamaCare, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the recent scamnesty bill, and averting "a government shutdown."  Except for the last effort, however, I can't think of one "triumph" she cites that's constitutional.  And all make stasis seem seductive. They're the kind of accomplishments that cause me to say, well, women can't chip.

Lawrence is fair to the not-fairer sex, though, writing that "some men" are "trying to make things work better"; these would be "[a]spiring deal-makers in today's Senate" such as "John McCain, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker[.]"

And you put all those guys together, and you still have Low T.

Transitioning to High E, Lawrence emphasizes how "[s]ome of the strongest bipartisan relationships are among the women themselves" (that's easy when your ideology is basically the same) and also reports, "The members have thrown showers for women who are getting married or adopting children. They socialize with their families at each other's homes. They run together and discuss how to juggle a Senate career and the responsibility of raising young children."  Yes, it's the Divine Secrets of the Tax-and-Spend Sisterhood.

Look, let's cut the (I'll be sexist) male bovine.  It's well-known by the less brainwashed that women are creatures of the flock; they don't like going against the group, which is one reason I didn't think the women judging George Zimmerman would give us a hung jury (though I did predict an acquittal two days ago).  And, thank God, this time 6 Collaborating Women did the job of 12 Angry Men.  But there's another way of saying women are of the flock.

And of collectivism.

(I explain part of why this is so here.)

Of course, the common thread in all the "Are Women Better?" articles is that women just must be morally superior to men.

Except, uh, for Lois Lerner.

And Janet Reno.

And Hillary Clinton.

And Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren.

And Kathleen Sebelius.

And Susan Rice.

And the Zimmerman trial judge.

And, and...you get the idea.

You see, there is a point almost universally missed here: whatever the sexes' characteristics in general, male and female candidates must endure the same often corrupt crucible when seeking office.  They must get down in the same mud.  They must win the favor of and be elected by the same people, who, as the saying goes, "get the government they deserve."  And who are these people?  Women have long voted in greater numbers than men, so whatever the shortcomings of politicians -- male or female -- the strongest wind beneath their wings is a feminine one.  Maybe the question we should ask is: do men make better voters than women?

But I will answer Jill Lawrence's question: no, the men are better senators.  This is because of Duke's First Rule of Female Politicians: as a rule, you don't find good women in politics.  Oh, there are exceptions -- perhaps, maybe, I suppose.  And there are good traditional women everywhere.

Just not in politics.

Good traditional women are generally at home doing the things women have traditionally done, to state the obvious.  The women you find in the bare-knuckle world of politics are almost invariably cut from the feminist stone, which is why so many have stone faces and stone hearts and part of why, to quote Lawrence again, "[t]he issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights[.]"

Of course, we'll only see more women in politics in the foreseeable future.  Society will hail this as a victory, but I'll just echo an earlier article of mine and say that when women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun -- and sons.  And when this is the case, it will set on our daughters as well.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.