I'm highly hesitant to accept women in politics.

To me it's important that you're *willing* to kill your opponent. Not literally, but as a Schmittian psychological possibility. It's tremendously difficult to imagine killing a woman for political reasons. It rightly revolts us. https://twitter.com/tom_username_/status/1248762533550399489

Schmittian and Clausewitzian.

The former because politics is the friend-enemy distinction (and Schmitt's "decisive" political entity is founded by virtue of its willingness to kill for this purpose).

The latter because killing is politics albeit by more extreme means.

You might think talk of "killing" extreme, but this factors into things whether you like it or not—even *within* a political grouping

You're more willing to traumatise a male comrade with devastating criticisms than a woman in the party. Why? Because you don't want women to die.

You have to be willing to go the whole distance. If these reservations hold your thoughts and words back, the best man will not rise to the top. Rather, the best & most obsequious diplomat will— i.e. the usual bog-standard democratic politician

The only other objection to this is the idea that a woman representative will blunt critiques levelled at your own party.

We can call this the "human shield argument". The Left likes this one. They've even started using children recently, e.g. Thunberg

Count me out on that one.