Why Women Can't Do Wars

Dear George,

Kind of scary isn’t it, the idea of a woman leading the greatest military superpower the world has ever seen, especially one who prattles on about villages and children. I hope your boys are mixing up some hi-grade mud in the back room.

I guess it is okay to have a woman heading up one of the minors like Pakistan or Burma; Thatcher wasn’t bad for the British since she managed to gut the welfare state. But when it comes to superpowers, you need a man at the helm. This has nothing to do with sexism, even though it does, because it touches on some basic differences between men and women, differences our Creator put there when he plucked Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. If a country is a military superpower, it needs wars to keep it in fighting trim, and when it comes to war, there are three reasons men have it over women:

First, ‘tis but a microscopic line that separates testosterone from bile. It is a biological irony that as the potency of a man’s testosterone declines, there is a corresponding increase in the potency of his bile. This is why old men start the juiciest wars, and why missiles look like phalluses.

Second, it requires a certain level of immaturity to launch a war. Now, mothers are always telling their daughters that girls develope faster than boys. What the mothers forget to tell them is that the boys do not catch up until their 50s or 60s, and that some of them go to the grave still trying to figure it out.

Finally, most of the world’s madness and violence erupts because men are the poor bastards who have to get it up, and that requires an awful lot of bullshit and posturing.

The bottom line is that until women can grow balls, the Oval Office is off limits to them. The United States has too much invested in military hardware to start worrying touching its feminine side. It takes a mean son of a bitch to spread democracy to the world. So dump a little semen in the mud vat and keep on stirring.

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones