Why our male politicians are weak: A theory

Despite the left attempting to emasculate our young men to undermine western society, most boys are biologically determined to be aggressive or, at the very least, a little bit assertive.

At school, before I became interested in girls in that unfamiliar way, ‘real boys’ were ‘never ever’ going to play with the girls. So, if a boy was only just engaging with a girl he was deemed immediately suspect.

However, if in any competition, his masculinity defeated or overwhelmed her, he was peer-judged as a bit pathetic, but, even worse, if he lost to a female his reputation was down the gurgler.

Those of us, particularly those who went to a co-educational school, may agree that, from a young age, being a participant in the separation of the genders was a known requirement to strengthen your place among your own gender peers. Or, was that just in my generation at that particular time?

The girls, on the other hand, played boys games. It was also okay for a female to lose to a boy but it was most commendable for a girl to win against a boy. However, it was not deemed ‘manly’ for a boy to win against a girl?? herein lies the theory.

If you’re a certain ‘metro modern-male type’ you will hesitate to debate hard with a female. You will debate far less hard than you would engage with any male opposition because ultimately you believe that you will be seen as pathetic, and you will feel like a bit of a ‘creep’ if you do treat them the same way you would treat a male.

The theory that a ‘fear of female inadequacy’ is learned from childhood and is socially ingrained in the psyche of many males, seems to be plausible. It certainly appears to be a weakness that is being exploited fully and cleverly by the left-wing and anti-male feminists worldwide.

Imagine, if you possibly can, Simon Bridges engaging with Jacinda in a crushing, take-no-prisoners attitude debate. On the one hand, we have Jacinda, a contrived women’s magazine international pin-up, now proven to be economically ignorant and inexperienced with a socialist-follower mentality, equipped with gender vulnerability, as well as the no-go area that she is pregnant.

On?the other hand, we have Bridges, who won’t ruthlessly debate the issues with Jacinda because of his own apparent psyche, including the fear of the mainstream media and the public undermining his career as a politician.

So, for now, in the face of her total incompetence, Jacinda goes unchallenged.

Despite not having a really assertive man, who is Churchillian or? Trumpian by nature, within their ranks, National’s biggest problem is not electing Judith Collins as the leader.

Judith Collins is taking the hard debate to Jacinda and the Coalition of Losers with positive political results. Most of us with balanced grey matter know this and acknowledge?that National’s current leader is not up to the task.

Ultimately, National need a leader of either gender who has a viable opinion, who is not afraid to debate the issues with reason and to emphatically win the debate. National need a leader who has intelligence and courage, and a vision to regain the treasury benches, win with a majority and carry forth a mandate to return New Zealand to a better economic position and democratic electoral system.

The National party need to change the leadership and their vision now and install Judith Collins as the future prime minister. If they don’t, the only option in 2020 will be a Labour-lite version of National continuing in opposition with a leader who considered going into coalition with the Greens.

How’s that looking now Simon?


by Max Sky

Retired from business, not from life.