I can’t get enough out of the scandal

I also can’t sleep, but I can read. And I found this one piece (by Sally Quinn) on the Spitzer case I can’t help but to comment on :

For the past few days since the Spitzer scandal broke, all anyone has been talking about is why? Why would a guy with a fabulous education, brilliant career, powerful position, beautiful and brainy wife and a lovely family, risk losing everything for a couple of evenings with a hooker.

I’m asking why, too. Why would a beautiful and brainy wife with three wonderful children allow herself to be put in this hideous situation for even 49 seconds — the time it took to apologize. Much less do it all over again two days later when her husband resigned as New York’s governor.

I know why he did what he did. Because he could. Arrogance and power are a lethal combination, and men who combine both often begin to believe in their own invincibility.

The more baffling question to me is why she did it. All I could think of, watching Silda Spitzer’s defeated expression, was of Taliban women covered from head to toe in burqa, standing a few paces behind their men, appendages to their all powerful husbands. Or Indian women committing sati, throwing themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre.

American women are so quick to criticize the religious tradition of others, where women take a subservient position – but are we so different? That’s not what the Spitzer scandal suggests.

One can only assume that the women who do this are just as enamored of the power and the position as their men. Of course their power is derivative, which makes it all the more difficult to lose. (It was reported that Silda Spitzer did not want her husband to resign.) Would Hillary Clinton have run for the Senate or even President had she not stood by her man after the Monica Lewinsky episode and insisted he not resign? We’ll never know.

I think that’s quitelikely true,but I wouldn’t be me, if I didn’t think it all comes down to that general immorality of women(aided by their irrationality) in the end. A woman who basically marries the biggest bully around, as Mr. Spitzer could probably be justly described based on his actions during his public life, can’t be a particularlygood and moralperson.Henceit’shardlyanywonderthat thetypeofawomanwhomarries hypocriticalpoliticianswhoabusetheirpowers will not show much moral backbone in these situations and is also often abused in her private life. It may or may not be good for themselves in a package deal as they get money and some power after all, but surely their actions aren’t good for humanity as a whole.

For a consequentialist moralist, striving to be moral involves hard thinking about the consequences of your actions, and as women generally have only mediocre intellects, they can’t be very moral. And the less they think, the less moral they remain (and more they go after wealthy and powerful politicians and rich athletes instead of good guys like me… the evil of this is just unthinkable!).

Thefactthatmoralityrequiresintelligence, is one of the main reasons why some smart people, like many transhumanists, think that intelligence enhancement is one of the most important priorities for humanity. Though of course it isn’t enough in itself as intelligence can be used also for evil which seems to be preferred by politicians who manage to gain public support in modern democracies.

Report This Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *